How Conservatives Destroyed the Environment
 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7890988.stm

Global warming 'underestimated'

Prof Field said rising temperatures could thaw Arctic permafrost

The severity of global warming over the next century will be much worse than previously believed, a leading climate scientist has warned.

Professor Chris Field, an author of a 2007 landmark report on climate change, said future temperatures "will be beyond anything" predicted.

Prof Field said the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report had underestimated the rate of change.

He said warming is likely to cause more environmental damage than forecast.

Speaking at the American Science conference in Chicago, Prof Field said fresh data showed greenhouse gas emissions between 2000 and 2007 increased far more rapidly than expected.

"We are basically looking now at a future climate that is beyond anything that we've considered seriously in climate policy," he said.

Prof Field said the 2007 report, which predicted temperature rises between 1.1C and 6.4C over the next century, seriously underestimated the scale of the problem.

He said the increases in carbon dioxide have been caused, principally, by the burning of coal for electric power in India and China.

Wildfires

Prof Field said the impact on temperatures is as yet unknown, but warming is likely to accelerate at a much faster pace and cause more environmental damage than had been predicted.

The BBC's science reporter Matt McGrath says the most recent data is also worrying because it threatens to kick-start what climate scientists call negative feedback effects.

Prof Field says that a warming planet will dry out forests in tropical areas making them much more likely to suffer from wildfires.

The rising temperatures could also speed up the melting of the permafrost, vastly increasing the amount of carbon in the atmosphere.

The BBC's science reporter Matt McGrath says the most recent data is also worrying because it threatens to kick-start what climate scientists call negative feedback effects.

Who said they're negative?

-20c here today.

Who said they're negative?

-20c here today. That's always the pithy answer, but it's not an actual one.

Let's all just blow off, for Che's sake, that there have been democrats in the office of president, too. I'm assuming his mindless assertions are directed at republicans.
I don't know that there's anything out there for you to grab that will guarantee you getting a grip.

Why do you say that?

Do you live where it reaches -20 or -30c?

As for the permafrost melting, how is this a bad thing for Canada or Russia?

Relax, eco-dude. The climate of the planet changes all on its own. It's not as if the activities of man will do something radical like change the orbit, hopefully.

So shush your tut-tuting.

Thanks for your obstructionism. Why do you bother Che?

Most of the conservatives on this forum still don't actually believe in, or understand, global warming even now, hence some of the answers on this thread already...http://www.discussworldissues.com/fo...s/rolleyes.gif

Conservatives the world over resisted Kyoto to the maximum of their abilities. Conservatives overwhelmingly run the world's most CO2 polluting industries.

When selfish greed was involved, the world's climate never stood a chance...http://www.discussworldissues.com/fo...lies/frown.gif

All we can do now, is climate-proof our lives as much as possible.

“I believe in making the world safe for our children, but not our children's children, because I don't think children should be having sex.”

http://www.discussworldissues.com/fo...ies/tongue.gif ACK!

You make the unwarranted assumption that Democratic presidents weren't also conservative. The only Democrat to rule in the White House since the effects of global warming first became understood, in the mid-80s, was Clinton, who was further to the righn that Nixon was when he sat in the Oval Office.

The fact is, people like you have fought, tooth and nail, to avoid doing anything for the last twenty years, saying it would hurt the economy, that there was no proof, and then when there was proof, saying there was no proof that humans were causing it. Well guess what, now it's too late to stop it, it's worse then we thought it was gonna be, and economies around the world (not to mention millions and millions--or more--lives will be lost. All so the wealthy can pocket a few more bucks and so dumbasses like you could feel good about yourself. We guess what, Slowwy, you and yours ****ed your children up the ass.

Che... discuss the topic and not the posters... enough with the personal crap.

Who said the leadership of China and India aren't conservative on this issue?

But that wouldn't sound NEARLY as destructive http://www.discussworldissues.com/fo...ilies/wink.gif

Yes, but adapting costs money. Adapting to environmental damage sometimes costs more than adapting to not cause the damage in the first place. The only difference is the first is not optional, while the second is.

As for the permafrost melting, how is this a bad thing for Canada or Russia? That was always the sort of thing nagging me when I was in Canada. It's really not in our best interest to do anything about the "problem" unless its consequences destabilize the world enough to drown out the direct benefits. (That is a distinct possibility, mind you.) Canada further benefits from having its population concentrated well above sea level.

This is why democracy is wrong. I recommend Jared Diamond's Collapse. In it, he looks at societies that have collapsed or avoided collapse due to environmental degradation. The rational conclusion is that two types of government types can evade collapse: direct democracies where the voters can all see the big picture (i.e. tiny societies), and those ruled by a dictator who notices the problem and solves it.

Basically the only people who wouldn't have destroyed the environment had they been in charge are the hardcore ecofanatics living in the woods, and maybe the Amish. That's also a fair criticism.

That's not entirely accurate either; the people who will feel the painful effects of this will generally be in the poorest countries least able to adapt to the changes. The children of "Slowwy and [his]" won't experience much of a difference at all, aside from perhaps having to live a little more frugally and maybe getting drafted to kill some starving brownies that get uppity overseas, but other than that Americans will live as comfortably as ever, at least on a comparative basis. I wouldn't want to live in Texas in 50-100 years... well ok, I wouldn't want to live there now.

You think hordes of Americans pouring across your border won't be problematic? Anyway, just cuz the permafrost melts doesn't mean you'll be able to do anything with it. If rain and snow patterns change, you'll just end up with a big desert instead.

Relax, eco-dude. The climate of the planet changes all on its own. It's not as if the activities of man will do something radical like change the orbit, hopefully.

If someone could profit off of it, they'd find a way. In any event, your argument is a foolish one. The fact that the climate changes on its own is not a reason to do nothing to stop our changing it in a direction that is bad, overall, for the environment that sustains us. It's like arguing, sheesh, people die all on their own, so why should we get excited about murder?

Also, increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere means more acidic oceans, which means less fish for Canada to exploit.

Both China and India have ratified the Kyoto Protocol.

You seem to assume all change will be negative.

The NW Passage opening up would be a boon to trade between Europe and Asia. I'm sure there are other possible positive effects, like longer growing seasons over large amounts of the Earth's surface in Northern Canada and Russia.

Seeing as the climate is going to change itself, gradually, anyway, I still am not buying the Chicken Little routine.

You too.

Why do you assume all change will be negative?

Relax, eco-dude. The climate of the planet changes all on its own. It's not as if the activities of man will do something radical like change the orbit, hopefully.

If someone could profit off of it, they'd find a way. In any event, your argument is a foolish one. The fact that the climate changes on its own is not a reason to do nothing to stop our changing it in a direction that is bad, overall, for the environment that sustains us. It's like arguing, sheesh, people die all on their own, so why should we get excited about murder? You mean changing it back to the way it was 500 years ago, with agriculture in Greenland is a bad thing?

Also, increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere means more acidic oceans, which means less fish for Canada to exploit. They're already gone. Murdered by the socialist hordes of Europe.

Such a social upheaval would ignite warfare across the globe. That would definitely affect the West when those countries decide to stop exporting what little food they'll have to attempt to prevent a full-scale revolution, or if we get involved militarily. Worst case, nukes start flying.

And very, very relevant in when that ends, eh?

The NW Passage opening up would be a boon to trade between Europe and Asia. I'm sure there are other possible positive effects, like longer growing seasons over large amounts of the Earth's surface in Northern Canada and Russia. It's not going to do us much good unless we can enforce our control over it. It is one of the few areas where I liked the Conservatives better than the other parties.

Seeing as the climate is going to change itself, gradually, anyway, I still am not buying the Chicken Little routine. But the change isn't gradual. Average change is gradual. You will see a gradual increase in severity and frequency of hurricanes. This won't matter until some big hurricane wipes out New Orleans... again.

And very, very relevant in when that ends, eh?

No.

To folks like MOBIUS and che, the only non-conservatives in Congress/Presidency over the past 10 years are folks like Bernie Sanders and Paul Wellstone.

To che they are most likely conservatives too.

The word sort of loses it's meaning in his vocabulary.