Enter your email address to subscribe to Irregular Times and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 374 other subscribers

Irregular Times Newsletters

Click here to subscribe to any or all of our six topical e-mail newsletters:
  1. Social Movement Actions,
  2. Credulity and Faith,
  3. Election News,
  4. This Week in Congress,
  5. Tech Dispatch and
  6. our latest Political Stickers and Such

Contact Us

We can be contacted via retorts@irregulartimes.com

American Identity Shrinks Under Climate Change

All those Republicans who say that they want more Homeland Security because they’re worried about attacks on American soil ought to be lining up to support efforts to fight climate change. Climate change, it turns out, is attacking American soil. There’s even an erosion of our bedrock values going on. This is right wing heaven!

I’m talking about a new study that finds that the Alaskan coast between Point Barrow and Prudhoe Bay, bordering on the Beaufort Sea, is retreating by close to 50 feet per year. The reasons: Rising sea levels, increase in seawater temperatures in the Arctic, and resulting wave activity. Immense blocks of coastline are dropping into the sea and then being washed away in no time flat.

If the erosion continues at this rate, Sarah Palin may soon have trouble watching Vladimir Putin rearing his head… when she’s not on book tour, I mean.

29 comments to American Identity Shrinks Under Climate Change

  • Tomas

    The sea levels are rising to about where they were roughly two thousand years ago…and then will retreat again. The cyclical nature of the earth warming and cooling…climate change is natural.

  • Care to cite some sources of peer reviewed scientific studies that show that, Tomas? Fox News and the Washington Times don’t count.

  • Tomas

    History itself. Areas around the world now, miles from the sea, were at one time, port cities. The water level at those locations are returning, slowly.

    So, also, if I can’t cite Fox or the Washington Times, bias places, you can’t cite any that use University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit tainted data…which is pretty much all of the GW folk….

    • I’m asking you to cite peer-reviewed scientific studies – the professional standard, no more. Apparently, you can’t do that. Apparently, you can’t find any to support your claims.

      I’ll cite you a study by Robert S. Anderson at the University of Colorado at Boulder, a study accepted by the American Geophysical Union. http://www.colorado.edu/news/r/26317d344a41bddac8ae083a1d13d198.html

      Are you seriously stating that the erosion of Alaska’s coastline isn’t taking place, that’s it’s all some kind of hoax orchestrated by Al Gore, just to make people like you look dumb? If that really is true, your arguments are helping his cause.

      • Tomas

        I can superimpose maps. Historical references from ancient city locations indicating shorelines and port cities with that of today and that of a few yeras ago. Don’t need a college degree to do that. A talent that I see used here on a regular basis….yes the shoreline is shrinking…that’s normal and something we have to adapt to, not change….

        • Tomas, that’s not science. That’s hyperventilated speculation of the sort Dan Brown used in The DaVinci Code.

          Name the ancient city locations. How ancient are they? 5,000 years ago? 2,000? From before the Industrial Revolution or after?

          Name the cities. Show the maps. Do the analysis yourself, and tell us about the statistics, and what they mean.

          OR, cite a scientist who has, and has published peer reviewed professional studies about the work. Not the History Channel. Not a Ghost Hunters episode. Not a dentist saying that he has the training to do the analysis of a climatologist. Give us a link to the study, not to http://www.industry-lobbists-created-this-climate-site.com

          Back it up, Tomas! Or, are these just third hand ideas that you heard someone on the radio talking about, once.

  • Ralph

    Can you explain how the University of East Anglia Climatic Research unit’s manipulation of data has caused the overwhelming majority of worldwide scientific opinion to falsely conclude that global warming is happening?

    I thought not.

    As though a few people in East Anglia could possibly perpetrate a scientific fraud on this scale. You might as well claim evolution is a scientific fraud. Or how about gravity? After all, gravity is just a “theory.”

    You’re shilling for liars, Thomas. Whether or not you understand that fact, you are shilling for liars.

    Wake up or shut up, Thomas. Whichever one you need to do.

  • Tomas

    Global warming is real, has been for thousands of years…man made global warming is fabricated….I have awaken and have seen the frauds….and will not shutup because you elitests say so….from my perspective, it is you and the tainted data that are the fools…

    The eroding coast line is supposed to happen. That’s how cyclical evets work. Alaska used to be tropical at one time…now it’s mostly frozen, working it’s way back to open tundra….and you think my lawn mower is at fault? Yea, sure….like we as people have that much power…

    • So Tomas, I see that no, you do NOT have any actual data to back up your beliefs. Scientists do, and they have written huge stacks of studies that have been verified by peers, publicly tested for weaknesses. You, you’re just making stuff up out of thin air. As Peregrin recently commented, dealing with a comment similar in tone on another article, you seem to just be irritated because the information scientists present you with doesn’t fit your preconceived beliefs.

      • Tomas

        I can say the same for you as believing anyone with a stack of data they say has been worked on for years. Well, the tainted data HAS been worked on for years as well…grants can make anything happen, ya know….

        • I’ve pointed to a particular, peer-reviewed study backed up by the American Geophysical Union.

          You can’t do the same. You keep on making wild assertions, but cannot back a single one of them up with even one scientific peer reviewed study.

          Lame, Tomas. Lame. This is not Fox News.

          • Tomas

            No. it’s MSNBC…

            • No, Tomas. I pointed to the University of Colorado at Boulder’s study.

              Where’s your data, Tomas? Do you have anything, or are you really just making it all up?

              • Tomas

                You really are afraid, aren’t you. That people like me actuall have the audacity to question YOUR data, you scientific truth, your grail’s existance. And if we really push to dare to ask, we get pounded or worse:

                or

                Yea, when things like this happen…damn right I’ll question your data. Want to see mine? If you reasearch so deep into global warmin data you will see it there with your own stats. They are side by side, you saw it. You just choose to ignore it. Or are you using the same tainted data..no wait, the sites you point to is using that same baseline data…or they are simnply using what they want to get Obama “Green” grant money.

              • Tomas, YouTube doesn’t do peer-reviewed scientific studies. Places like the University of Colorado at Boulder do.

                Point to the peer-reviewed scientific study that backs up what you’re saying, please.

                You really can’t find one, can you?

              • Tomas

                Sure I can…but the time to prove to a climate nazi on a dinky blog populated by a handle full of malcontents is not a good use of my time. That’s money, and THAT”S what matters in the end. Money and comfort, that we all want. So, Green Man, unless you are walking to work everyday, using hamster generated power in your home and eating grass from the yard, point to the data all day…YOU are as much the problem than the solution. Or does your buying of carbon credits count?

                Want data? Flip the page to your own results and see the upside YOU fail to report with every post.

              • Tomas, it took me about 45 seconds to find the link to the University of Colorado at Boulder study. It’s not hard – unless you’re trying to find a study to support a crazy claim that has no basis in fact.

                You have spent two days now writing comments on this article, spreading wild assertions, and you say that you don’t have time to show me just one genuine scientific source that supports your original claim? That’s ridiculous.

                There isn’t any scientific, peer-reviewed study that supports what you’re saying. You have no reasonable ground to stand on.

  • Tomas

    Can you explain how the University of East Anglia Climatic Research unit’s manipulation of data has caused the overwhelming majority of worldwide scientific opinion to falsely conclude that global warming is happening?

    Sure, they all used their second form of base line data….which was manipulated….the original base line data was “destroyed” in their move to a new facility…how unfortunate….

    Perhaps you would like to read the fraud in action? Try: http://www.climate-gate.org/

    • Tomas, you can’t come up with a single scientific study to substantiate your wild assertions, and so you are attempting to change the subject.

      You don’t even understand the context of the emails that you keep pointing to, and the web site that you keep pointing to (not at all a scientific study or professional peer review) doesn’t represent anything other than what’s convenient for industrial polluters.

      Are you aware that the research that those emails are referring to doesn’t even have to do with establishing whether or not global warming exists, or is due to human activities? The emails have to do with a tiny bit of data that reflect upon a subset of efforts to predict future warming. Besides that, there are multiple lines of evidence leading to the scientific conclusion that climate change is due in substantial part to human activities. Even if these emails were to pollute one of those lines of evidence, they wouldn’t deal with the others.

      Your critiques are as based in logic as a man with stinking, oozing legs, with a tissue sample cultured to find anaerobic streptococci, insisting to an emergency room physician that he cannot possibly have gangrene, because the nurse failed to take his blood pressure correctly.

      Are you aware of the incredible number of professional scientists and scientific organizations all around the world that have been working on these matters for the last generation, and the amount of published work they have done with data that’s available to be refuted? You could go and look at it, and refute it, if there were grounds, and if you were to care enough about the facts to do so.

      You have no clue how science works if you really think that one person shooting his mouth off in an unprofessional way contradicts all this work. If you want to be taken seriously, you have to prove your case, not just point to http://www.al-gore-is-goofy-gate.com

      I don’t expect you to answer any of these questions, any more than I expected you to be able to cite even one scientific peer reviewed study that would substantiate your assertions.

  • Tomas

    Sure I can, there are many scientists coming forward daily to question the validity of the data. YOU are afraid to read it through to see the fruad created. That’s your house of cards will collapse. I say it again, global warming is quite real…man made glboal warming is not. There will be more CO2 in the air this week from the volcanic eruption in the Phillipines than there was in the entire 20th century. Oh, yea. Mount Pinitubo did that in the 80s when it went up as well….guess what, we’re still here. Did I mention Mount St Helen? Just those natural events alone dwarfs the action of man…and things still move forward.

    The bluff is being called, and all the chicken little dances are being seen for what they are…the people are seeing the true nature of the Global warming push…money….

    • Bluff called? Okay, come on, then, POINT TO THE PEER REVIEWED STUDY! You just said that you could, but then you didn’t do it! You just babbled on about a volcano.

      Where’s the data to back up what you said, Tomas?

      • Tomas

        Average folk don’t believe it anymore…here’s some light reading: http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/146138

        • Talk, talk, talk. The Daily Express is NOT a peer reviewed scientific journal. It is a biased tabloid dedicated to “crusading for a fairer Britain”. What’s more, the article you pointed to is merely a re-publishing of the talking points of an ideological organization!

          It’s easy for people to make arguments based on their beliefs about what OUGHT to be true. It’s a great deal more difficult to have a peer-reviewed piece of literature published, and then subjected to replication by other replication, which is what scientists do.

          So, you can’t find any peer-reviewed scientific study to support what you’ve claimed is true. Why can’t you just admit it, and adjust your frame accordingly?

  • Tom

    March with the lemmings, right over the cliff Tomas.

    The big problem, Green Man, is that these people (maybe a majority) don’t have the capacity to handle climate change because it would disrupt their extravagant life-styles – just keep driving your SUV to Wal-Mart to pick up all that crap from China that you don’t need, go home and watch Nascar! Don’t worry, we won’t be around for any of it.

    The human race has become so stupid and careless that its causing its own extinction.

  • Tomas

    So if I like NASCAR I’m a simplton? Wow, guess I’ll just go home then to my double wide and sulk…it’s always the progressives that play the race/gender/education card when people don’t see things their way. Way to go Tommy….way to go….

    Bottom line, The Climate folk are hemorrhaging believers daily. The brain washing of children in schools is being offset with reality…ie cold snow days and mild summers…kids aren’t stupid…

    And as for virtual extinction…that’s a good thing…it will weed out the population thru natural selction of the weak and the dumbasses….

    • Jim

      Tomas writes: “The brain washing of children in schools is being offset with reality… ie cold snow days and mild summers…kids aren’t stupid…”

      You can rant all you like about socialist-Hillary-Clinton-nature-loving-cowpie-lefties and I’ll just smirk. But don’t depart from the facts, Tomas, because you’re right: kids aren’t stupid.

      Fact: This past decade has been the warmest decade in the history of meterological observation.

      Fact: Average global ocean temperature records

      Fact: Average global land temperature records

      There’s nothing wrong with true skepticism, since true skepticism involves engagement with actual facts. When you deviate from actual fact so starkly that you say the opposite of what’s true, Tomas, then we know you aren’t actually a skeptic. Your denial is based on faith in an unseen non-reality.

  • Tomas

    …then it will take 45 seconds to find my point as well. You see it everytime you do your searches, but you want me to post it so you can fire off your preset resposes…naw, sorry, you have to read them for yourself as stew over them.

    People as a whole don’t buy it anymore. When your own prophet can’t get his facts straight: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/copenhagen/article6956783.ece or http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/climategate_gore_falsifies_the_record

    And you demand I give you references when you site the Carbon Footprint King.

    I’m going back to work, helping you increase your carbon footprint….

    • Tomas, I’ve asked you to cite just one scientific study that meets the global standard of being peer reviewed. Once again, you’re not doing that. You’re sending me to a blog and to an opinion piece in a newspaper.

      Come on, Tomas, you made a claim about science, and I asked you to back it up with just one genuine scientific study. Why can’t you find even one? Have you stopped to think about that?

      • Jim

        He’s not even linking to blogs or opinion pieces that have anything to do with the subject at hand. You ask him to provide a peer-reviewed scientific study to support his claims about sea level 2000 years ago, and he links to opinion pieces about Al Gore? Odd.

Leave a Reply

  

  

  

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>