Climate change: Is it for real?

you really don't know what you're talking about

if you had watched the video i posted you would see how destructive it's been

the tundra is melting, that's from global warming

 

This is about all you have. Sad.

 

Imo the "if" is only whether the warming is induced by mankind.... And to what degree

And as regards the impact of current warming.
You might have a point if the impacts were limited to those currently seen
Unfortunately we also have to consider potential future impacts if trends continue and escalate for years into the future. Trying to estimate those future impacts depends upon models and lots of guess work.
You can guess that the models and projections may be wrong and are unreliable. BUT, in fact no one knows for sure how all this will turn out. If it turns out that you are wrong, you will have advocated for an extremely irresponsible policy... For which future generations will curse us.

I dont plan to be around long enough to have it matter much to me

 

Now that's what I especially like: A well-considered, thoughtful response...

 

That is indeed correct.

Do you believe (as many on the left do) that the correct way to obviate this possible future damage is through a policy of reduced growth (or even "degrowth"--which is to say, a contraction of our economy)?

 

No i do not
I think there are ample ways to have growth while at the same time mitigating risk
Take for example auto fuel economy standards.
Cars are getting better
gas mileage, it saves consumers money
And the auto industry is doing just fine

 

that's funny considering how you completely avoided the comment i made

either watch the video and respond to the facts or admit that

you don't know what you're talking about

 

Still not aware that Kivalina is the seventh in a long line of the 'first climate refugees" in a long line of false alarmist claims? Evidently you are not aware of the actual causes of the problem. It was built on an unstable barrier island that are often washed away due to normal ocean activity. The fact that they used to live inland and the island was only a summer hunting ground means they knew better than the Russians that thought it was the village. They sued Exxon Mobil blaming CO2 but the courts threw it out. Kivalina was relocated to its current location in 1905 when the Bureau of Indian Affairs repeated the error of the Russian naval officer by mistaking a seasonal camp on the barrier reef for a year-round village. Shifting sand is not a stable base for any village.

 

it's unstable because of warming temperatures

 

It is a barrier island. Not that you would understand anything about much of anything.

 

it's not the only village that's being harmed by global warming and climate change


"Newtok is eroding in part because it sits on permafrost, a once-permanently frozen sublayer of soil found in Arctic region. As temperatures increase in Alaska, that permafrost is melting, leading to rapid erosion. Snow is melting earlier in the spring in Alaska, sea ice is disappearing and the ocean temperature is increasing. Alaska is warming at a rate two to three times faster than the mainland United States, and the average winter temperature has risen 6.3 degrees over the past 50 years."

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/08/alaska-village-climate-change/402604/

 

Newtok was the sixth 'first climate refugees' claimed by the alarmists. The permafrost degradation in Newtok was caused by infrastructure and they 'hard armored' a sandy beach which now takes the impact of ocean waves and directs it elsewhere instead of a soft sandy beach. If you build on permafrost, you build above the ground, not on it or in it. If it were CO2 like the Sierra Club claimed, the whole coast would be eroding, not just where man made changes causing the problem.

 

your excuses are amusing, scientists and people that live in alaskan villages, say you're wrong


[video=youtube;x3DHR8MMOr4]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x3DHR8MMOr4[/video]

 

Yep, another media alarmist claim with no basis in fact (and from 2009)

http://www.eswr.com/2014/07/bearded-seal-listing-vacated-by-federal-judge-in-alaska/

 

the video makes it clear that this isn't alarmism, it's reality

and your seal argument is quite amusing

 

Well of course, the video counters the science so it MUST be true!

 

the video relies on science, facts, evidence and logic

your seal argument doesn't counter the fact that climate change is harming the villagers

 

No, I get it, you take an alarmist media report from 2009 based on anecdotal evidence over current science any day.

 

i'm relying on science, facts, evidence and logic

as opposed to the irrelevant argument you're making

 

LOL, sure thing Skippy. What a hoot.

 

this issue isn't based on seal extinction

it's about the effect of global warming and climate change on human beings

 

Yes, yes, I know, an alarmist media video from 2009 trumps current science. I get it.

 

it's obvious you're being dishonest

 

Ah yes, facts are not important, only an alarmist media video from 2009 can be the 'truth'.

 

facts are important