backtop


Print 166 comment(s) - last by Nichols1986.. on Dec 9 at 9:44 AM


Shishmaref, before warming began the loss of permafrost into the ocean.  (Source: NOAA)

Shishmaref, after warming began the loss of permafrost into the ocean.  (Source: NOAA)

Shelton and Clara Kokeok fear every day that their home may soon slip into the ocean.  (Source: CNN.com)
One house falls into sea, others on verge of collapse, some choose to make the painful move inland

When the citizens of Shishmaref, Alaska, a tiny Inupiat Eskimo village, talk about global warming there's little doubt in their minds that it is occurring.  After all, the changing climate is threatening to permanently destroy their community.

Coastal erosion has long been an issue in the town, which is composed of homes built atop permafrost.  However, with the onset of rising temperatures, the anchoring permafrost has begun to melt and fall into the ocean in snowmobile-sized chunks, accelerating the loss of land to a pace unprecedented in recorded history.

The destructive trend caused one of the homes, built by-hand by the villagers, to plunge into the cool ocean waters.  Of the remaining homes, 13 were moved inland, with only a single home, built and owned by Shelton and Clara Kokeok, native residents, remaining.  Their home is on a tip of a bluff and may soon become the latest casualty.  Describes Shelton Kokeok, 65, "The land is going away.  I think it's going to vanish one of these days."

The loss of the village threatens to wipe out the Kokeoks' centuries-old culture, their unique language and the town's unique economy.  And they aren't the only one -- 11 other Alaskan villages are experiencing similar collapses due to warming.  For these people moving is no simple matter -- their homes and culture are built on an intimate time-honored relationship with the ocean that dates back to long before the days of white settlers on Alaskan soils.

Those losses are just the precursors to a worldwide disaster, claims the Environmental Justice Foundation in a new report.  The organization, among those calling for quick action to reduce emissions, says that rising sea levels may eventually make as many as 150 million people "climate refugees".

Three students from the village of Shishmaref will travel to Copenhagen to attend the UN climate talks and serve as first hand witnesses, trying to convince the international community to act. 

Moving the town hasn't been cheap.  It is estimated that the move will cost $200M USD to complete.  And there's reportedly a cost in human life.  Shelton's son Norman died while hunting on the ice in the first week in June.  The ice broke and he drowned.  Shelton blames warming, as the ice has traditionally been frozen at that time.


Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

And we should care...... why?
By Lerianis on 12/3/2009 2:19:13 PM , Rating: 4
The fact is that these people were living in a marginal place that was going to fall into the sea as soon as we went from a cooling cycle to a warming cycle, man-made/helped or not!




RE: And we should care...... why?
By AssBall on 12/3/2009 2:23:10 PM , Rating: 5
Kinda like what will happen to people who live in New Orleans... or San Fransico... lulz


RE: And we should care...... why?
By headbox on 12/3/2009 2:57:49 PM , Rating: 5
My sister just bought a house on a floodplain known to flood about every 10 years. The house is not designed to withstand a flood, and it's the third house that's been on the property too. People are stupid. Why build for the future when you can just make something out of sticks and sheetrock, then blame the government when it falls down?

It least we're a little better than the Middle East, where they blame roofs caving in on "not enough prayer."


RE: And we should care...... why?
By kattanna on 12/3/2009 3:56:45 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
It least we're a little better than the Middle East, where they blame roofs caving in on "not enough prayer."


yeah, we save that "special" treatment for sick kids here...


RE: And we should care...... why?
By paydirt on 12/3/2009 4:08:07 PM , Rating: 5
86,000+ people will die today.

Climate change is a fact of life. It would occur with/without man. Things change and life is risky. We shroud ourselves with our rituals to give ourselves the illusion of safety. We could die any day, lose our shit any day, lose a loved one any day.

This article is like some dude who is dating a crazy woman and then complains that the crazy woman dumped him or stabbed him... Hello? You live on the coast with no break walls and complain about erosion? Evolution. 13 households were smart enough to move inland, 2 were not. Thank you nature for getting rid of the 2.


RE: And we should care...... why?
By quiksilvr on 12/3/2009 4:34:29 PM , Rating: 2
Couldn't agree with you more. Why do people live in Tornado Alley? Why do people live in Florida or along the tectonic plates along California? It doesn't make any sense! Darwinism at its best, I say.


RE: And we should care...... why?
By Souka on 12/3/2009 6:39:48 PM , Rating: 5
WTH?!

$200 million to move 13 homes? uh....


RE: And we should care...... why?
By Jedi2155 on 12/3/2009 10:29:23 PM , Rating: 4
Wouldn't it be cheaper to rebuild the homes into Mansions.....?


RE: And we should care...... why?
By bjacobson on 12/3/2009 10:34:58 PM , Rating: 2
homes to nowhere???? :)


RE: And we should care...... why?
By Souka on 12/4/2009 12:11:54 PM , Rating: 2
AWESOME! I like it. :)
+1 for u


RE: And we should care...... why?
By Alexstarfire on 12/4/2009 10:33:19 AM , Rating: 2
I think it's more than just houses that make up a town, but you are right. It sounds like that is more money than was spent to build the town in the first place.


RE: And we should care...... why?
By menace on 12/4/2009 5:33:58 PM , Rating: 3
They probably got stimulus money to move it but came with mandates to build a community arts center, diversity center, youth center, yard waste processing center, recycling center, etc. Plus I'm sure it created or saved about 2,000 jobs.


RE: And we should care...... why?
By Alexvrb on 12/5/2009 3:56:28 PM , Rating: 2
You're leaving out the best part - most of the jobs created or saved were in an imaginary district.


RE: And we should care...... why?
By Ristogod on 12/4/2009 9:35:50 AM , Rating: 2
Being hit by a Tornado in Tornado alley is still far more slim than some of these other natural occurrences. Besides, it is possible to build Tornado withstanding structures. So I would disagree, in that Tornado alley is one of the more safe places to live. The coastal areas are different. Their nice. But they go hand in hand with their set of challenges.


RE: And we should care...... why?
By d3872 on 12/4/2009 1:15:45 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Why do people live in Tornado Alley?


While I agree with most of what you're saying, I thought I'd chime in about Tornado Alley. It's fundamentally different than flood plains, etc, and not really particularly dangerous. Unlike a flood plain or other strong, localized hazard, tornado alley stretches through huge chunks of at least nine states (or more, depending on how you define it), and the incidence of tornados in any given location is very, very small. This is fundamentally different from rebuilding a house for the third time in 20 years following a flood/hurricane/whatever.

Most of the tornado alley stuff is just Hollywood hype and media sensationalism (the phrase "tornado alley" was coined by the media, not be meteorologists). Yes, there are dozens of tornados in my state (Kansas) every year, but Kansas is over 82,000 square miles, and you're talking about a phenomenon that affects (at most) an area of a quarter mile wide by a few miles long. I'm more likely to die from slipping in the bathtub than I am from a tornado.

If you live in a coastal city that's below sea level, you're at a pretty serious risk. In contrast, 99.9% of tornado alley will not experience a tornado in the next 100 years.


RE: And we should care...... why?
By Screwballl on 12/4/2009 2:59:23 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
Why do people live in Tornado Alley? Why do people live in Florida or along the tectonic plates along California? It doesn't make any sense!


Why do people live at all? Why don't we all just kill ourselves and let the planet go back to nature without mans interference...

Based on your reasoning, no one could live anywhere... Tornadoes, hurricanes, blizzards, Locusts, bears, deer, earthquakes, volcanoes, ice storms, heat waves, desert heat, winter cold, landslides, avalanches, and don't forget alien attacks... nope there is no reason for man to live when he will just die some day...


RE: And we should care...... why?
By Boze on 12/6/09, Rating: 0
RE: And we should care...... why?
By drycrust on 12/4/2009 10:46:55 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
Climate change is a fact of life


As came out in the recent unauthorised release of emails from the Climate Research Unit in Britain, the earth's annual worldwide average temperature has changed by 0.06 degrees over the last 100 years.
As a scientific lay person, especially in weather matters, my belief is 0.06 deg needs to be held in context of what resolution the weather forecasters used when taking temperatures. Since all the temperatures I see published regularly are either in Fahrenheit or Celsius with a resolution of 1 degree (and 1 degree Fahrenheit is about half that of Celsius), it suggests this 0.06 deg could easily be regarded as nil.
If you can accept that our weather monitoring stations are essentially a random sample of the world's weather on any particular day, then isn't it also normal for there to be a "margin of error" and a standard deviation?
Since no one has said, my scientifically ignorant guess, and making an allowance for the temperatures resolution to an unevenly distributed half or 1 degree C, is the 0.06 is well within the margin of error.
Regardless, while I can accept this as a side effect of the climate at the poles getting warmer, that doesn't mean the entire planet is warming, nor does it mean it is caused by man, it just reflects the fact the climate at the poles is getting warmer.


RE: And we should care...... why?
By JediJeb on 12/4/2009 11:41:26 AM , Rating: 3
If only our world leaders had as much common sense as you do!

And I mean that with all sincerity.


RE: And we should care...... why?
By boeush on 12/4/09, Rating: -1
RE: And we should care...... why?
By SPOOFE on 12/6/2009 6:16:40 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The warming is following an exponential curve

... Even if you put random figures into the calculations used to derive that exponential curve. Sorry, but the warming your referring to is either an artifact of bad science or a deliberate fraud.


By elgueroloco on 12/8/2009 3:29:19 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, only the north pole is getting warmer. Antarctica is actually getting a good deal colder and adding a couple dozen megatons of ice every year. Only the Antarctic Peninsula, a very tiny piece of Antarctica (about 2%) is experiencing warming.


RE: And we should care...... why?
By gamerk2 on 12/4/09, Rating: -1
RE: And we should care...... why?
By jhb116 on 12/5/2009 11:07:05 AM , Rating: 2
I have a tear in my eye. Very well stated.


RE: And we should care...... why?
By mezman on 12/7/2009 5:28:46 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
It least we're a little better than the Middle East, where they blame roofs caving in on "not enough prayer."


We don't? We are blaming coastal erosion in Alaska on a lack of faith in AGW. A lack of faith in the religion of AGW has caused the heathens who live in the US to not push forward with any draconian cuts to our lifestyle. Our unwillingness to hamstring our economy by enacting laws to establish limits on greenhouse gas emissions has caused Gaia to express her wrath by washing away a few feet of coastal dirt in AK.

No, we're much more advanced than that. </sarcasm>


RE: And we should care...... why?
By Reclaimer77 on 12/3/09, Rating: -1
By GaryJohnson on 12/3/2009 4:07:01 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
However there is no way to stop the ocean from eroding this coastline that I have ever heard of.


From wiki:
Offshore breakwaters, also called bulkheads, reduce the intensity of wave action in inshore waters and thereby reduce coastal erosion.

Those are kinda like levees.


RE: And we should care...... why?
By SPOOFE on 12/3/2009 4:31:23 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
New Orleans isn't even comparable to this story. We have and CAN keep water out of the city.

No, it's pretty comparable: New Orleans is indicative of the occasionally prohibitive costs of trying to keep Mama Nature at bay. You've already observed the huge costs associated with keeping the Big Easy dry; heck, we can't even afford to do it proper. Now imagine the sort of expenditure if we tried to keep every significantly populated place from being affected by natural climate changes.


RE: And we should care...... why?
By AEvangel on 12/3/09, Rating: 0
RE: And we should care...... why?
By epobirs on 12/3/2009 4:54:01 PM , Rating: 2
Wrong on two counts. First, the military actions were far from pointless. Second, you could allocate a trillion bucks for protecting New Orleans from natural disasters and what was left after all the various thieves had their way wouldn't be enough. There is never enough money where corruption is the default state and NO prided itself on its corruption. It was considered part of the charm.

Throwing money at a problem is pointless if you cannot trust the people receiving the money.


RE: And we should care...... why?
By AEvangel on 12/3/09, Rating: 0
RE: And we should care...... why?
By Reclaimer77 on 12/3/2009 5:32:37 PM , Rating: 1
lol oh you Haliburton kids are still on that bandwagon. It's so cute.

And please ! Hundreds of thousands of innocent's death toll..ummm where in the hell did you get that number ?


RE: And we should care...... why?
By AEvangel on 12/3/2009 5:46:07 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
lol oh you Haliburton kids are still on that bandwagon. It's so cute.


Yeah well cronyism gets to us, as does corporate greed, and war profiteering...shame it doesn't bother you more.

quote:
And please ! Hundreds of thousands of innocent's death toll..ummm where in the hell did you get that number ?


http://www.iraqbodycount.org/ 94k to 102k deaths

Death toll of civilians in Afghanistan up by 40%, UN reports - Times Online (3 December 2009)

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/a...


RE: And we should care...... why?
By Spuke on 12/3/2009 6:03:06 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
http://www.iraqbodycount.org/ 94k to 102k deaths
Ummm. You said "hundreds of thousands" of deaths not 94,000 to 104,000. In case you forgot:

quote:
Your right they were pointless they made Haliburton billions and killed hundreds of thousands of innocent people living in those countries.
Small difference there and you would've just let that bit of misinformation hang out there had no one called you on it too. Those that seek to misinform and mislead the masses to suit their own agendas are the most evil in the world, IMO. Only a step down from serial killers as far as I'm concerned. I feel dumber for even responding to your post and may God have mercy on your soul.


RE: And we should care...... why?
By mindless1 on 12/3/2009 6:30:08 PM , Rating: 2
That's ridiculous. Words on a forum are a dime a dozen.


RE: And we should care...... why?
By Spuke on 12/3/2009 6:48:10 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
That's ridiculous. Words on a forum are a dime a dozen.
Then why do you bother to post?


RE: And we should care...... why?
By ChoreBoy on 12/5/2009 12:50:33 PM , Rating: 2
"may god have mercy on your soul".... nice one..... make sure to point out that you believe in god, and are therefore right.


RE: And we should care...... why?
By SPOOFE on 12/3/2009 5:41:45 PM , Rating: 1
Military endeavors are peanuts compared to the local entitlements we have. Get a proper reform of welfare and you'd have far more money saved than nixing our entire military expenditure.

It's a total myth that the military is sucking up our money. The real losses of cash come from pork and stupid entitlements.


RE: And we should care...... why?
By AEvangel on 12/3/2009 5:57:14 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Military endeavors are peanuts compared to the local entitlements we have.


Actually Military expenditures are the highest expenditure in the budget for the last 8 years.


RE: And we should care...... why?
By Chaser on 12/4/2009 9:54:31 AM , Rating: 2
Get off your talking points and learn something before you post. The military budget combined with Iraq and Afganistan doesn't even come close the to entitlement spending the U.S. can't afford today.

Obama and congress is running up a 1.2 trillion dollar ANNUAL, repeat ANNUAL spending deficit. The largest spending binge in American history. No, Bush didn't even come close in his entire 8 years and no, the military budget is not most of this.

So what now do the Democrats propose? More spending. And creating more unfunded entitlements with this ridiculous government takeover of healthcare. They are racing to get this through under the eyes of the American public while they desperately hold onto power because they realize they'll never have another chance at something like this in the near future. Only 35% of Americans now support this ridiculous healthcare takeover. (Gallop)

I don't know how you do your budget but reckless spending when your country is in unprecented debt is never a way to recover from a recession.


RE: And we should care...... why?
By Lerianis on 12/4/2009 1:08:51 PM , Rating: 1
Most of the 'entitlement spending' is only necessary because we will not raise the minimum wage to twice what it is now so that people don't have to work 3 or 4 jobs in order to make ends meet because they are only getting paid minimum wage.

It's time to realize that the problem is NOT the entitlement programs, but the thinking that people with 'no higher education' are less worthy of good pay. They are NOT worthy of less pay in the slightest.
In fact, coming from doing some of those minimum wage jobs.... they should really be getting paid more than the 15 bucks an hour that I am paid at my pretty-much desk job.


RE: And we should care...... why?
By SPOOFE on 12/4/2009 4:13:52 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Most of the 'entitlement spending' is only necessary because we will not raise the minimum wage to twice what it is now so that people don't have to work 3 or 4 jobs in order to make ends meet because they are only getting paid minimum wage.

Completely wrong. It is NOT necessary, and it has NOTHING to do with minimum wage. It is an indirect form of bribery: Offer the world, hide the costs and negative effects, and hope nobody notices as you sail into office with the plan of being retired and leaving your mess for someone else to deal with. It is unhealthy for a society and anyone that claims to care should be against it.

quote:
It's time to realize that the problem is NOT the entitlement programs

The problem is spending too much money, and the entitlement programs make up the VAST majority of that spending.

quote:
but the thinking that people with 'no higher education' are less worthy of good pay. They are NOT worthy of less pay in the slightest.

They are only as worthy as their ability to convince another that they are worthy. That's the system. There's no Magical Standard that people inherently "deserve". They only deserve what they earn; giving them something they didn't earn is mentally unhealthy in the long run, and doing it en masse is crippling to an economy.

quote:
In fact, coming from doing some of those minimum wage jobs.... they should really be getting paid more than the 15 bucks an hour that I am paid at my pretty-much desk job.

What, I've never had a crap job? Get over yourself. These "No Talent Required" jobs get exactly what they deserve. Minimum Wage is an impetus for people to improve themselves, and outside of extreme cases, just about everyone has options for growth and improvement. The problem is the entitlements: With money flowing essentially for free to anyone that can convince one of far too many government desk punks that they're a "victim" somehow, there's no incentive to actually improve, and thus people wallow in this phony victimhood that you're creating.

It's nothing but populist rhetoric, the sort of nonsense that appeals to people because, oh, if only it were true, it would make them completely blameless for their situation. And that's far more harmful than any military spending.


RE: And we should care...... why?
By Nfarce on 12/5/2009 5:45:04 PM , Rating: 2
GOD you sound so pathetic. You are PAID what the job is WORTH. Who are YOU to say how much someone should be paid? Those jobs belong to the EMPLOYER, NOT THE EMPLOYEE.

Finally, if you are so smart and feel someone should be paid more than you in a minimum wage job, then start your own damn business and PAY them what you think they are worth for God's sake. I'd LOVE to see your small business operation paying someone $20/hr. plus all the other fairytale benefits you probably want for them.

Where the hell do people who "think" like you get educated? Disney World? And I use the word "think" loosely because some people "think" with emotions, not rational, factual, and logical thought - they're known as liberals.


RE: And we should care...... why?
By AEvangel on 12/3/09, Rating: 0
RE: And we should care...... why?
By Spuke on 12/3/2009 6:46:21 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Actually Military expenditures are the highest expenditure in the budget for the last 8 years.
Cite a reference supporting your statement.


RE: And we should care...... why?
By SPOOFE on 12/3/2009 6:58:59 PM , Rating: 3
Social Security.


RE: And we should care...... why?
By hashish2020 on 12/4/2009 3:43:48 AM , Rating: 3
That is disingenuous at best.

Social security has taken more in in receipts than it has ever taken out in expenditures.

Not to mention, most of social security gets returned directly to American citizens. Much of our military expenditures are used to protect foreign civilians, largely in parts of the world we destabilized to allow private concerns the ability to buy up natural resources.

In a true free market, we wouldn't have to bail out companies who purchase assets in risky geographical locations.

And the funny thing about our "defense budget"...it is a fiction, as war expenditures (well over a hundred billion a year) nuclear armaments (under the Department of Energy) no-interest or guaranteed loan agreement for our allies to purchase armaments, overseas intelligence operations (entire CIA budget, portions of the NSA budget, along with overseas FBI and various other budgets)

So in the end, whereas Social Security has outlays of ~610-620 billion completely covered by receipts and therefore actually deficit negative, military expenditures are 1000 billion or more, and contribute directly to the budget

Fact are facts.


RE: And we should care...... why?
By SPOOFE on 12/4/2009 4:55:42 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
That is disingenuous at best.

In response to a comment that was downright wrong? Entitlement spending is by far the biggest drain on tax dollars at all levels of Government.

quote:
Social security has taken more in in receipts than it has ever taken out in expenditures. Social security has taken more in in receipts than it has ever taken out in expenditures.

That's great, but that money just comes out of people's wallets. It doesn't generate revenue. It just moves money from one place to another, maybe collect a little interest and inflation here and there, but it's still an expense that the people have to bear. That it comes with the promise of eventual security is immaterial when examining cost.

quote:
Not to mention, most of social security gets returned directly to American citizens. Much of our military expenditures are used to protect foreign civilians, largely in parts of the world we destabilized to allow private concerns the ability to buy up natural resources.

Sending cash over to the likes of Boeing and Lockheed Martin and et cetera also returns money directly to American citizens. It provides education and lifelong pensions for every American soldier. While I certainly won't suggest that it's necessarily profitable for the country, your implication that there's zero return from military spending is simply inaccurate.

quote:
In a true free market, we wouldn't have to bail out companies who purchase assets in risky geographical locations.

I'm with ya. Why you think this is salient is beyond me.


RE: And we should care...... why?
By hashish2020 on 12/4/2009 3:07:46 PM , Rating: 2
"Entitlement spending is by far the biggest drain on tax dollars at all levels of Government."

Social security and entitlement spending are not one and the same, I was responding to the simple response of "Social security"

"While I certainly won't suggest that it's necessarily profitable for the country, your implication that there's zero return from military spending is simply inaccurate."

Do you understand the meaning of "much"?
If you think VA expenses and hardware purchases are large parts of our spending, I advise you to research further
And if you think there's zero return for transfer payments I advise you to look at crime rates internationally compared to wealth inequity...the regression values for gini index versus murder rate is so close to 1 it is scary

Plus, and here's the kicker, MOST PEOPLE SUPPORT ENTITLEMENT PROGRAMS, which has largely been proven politically as Republicans, once ranting about government spending and entitlement programs at tea parties, see the political benefit of opposing needed Medicare cuts.

And that is what it comes down to---you are as idealistic as any communist, and as unrealistic. You see capitalism as some absolutely perfect system (a thesis which behavioral economics, a true empirical system, not Austrian or Chicago economics, pie in the sky theoretical systems that never use actual facts, has disproven) and the retardo campus commies see PURE socialism as the perfect system

Two sides of the same coin


RE: And we should care...... why?
By SPOOFE on 12/4/2009 4:20:34 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Social security and entitlement spending are not one and the same, I was responding to the simple response of "Social security"

And Social Security matches defense spending. Further, costs of SS look to go up - especially in a few years when the Baby Boomers start collecting. Spending on the military can be slashed, but entitlement spending is nigh impossible to reduce; the backlash is too politically harmful.

quote:
Plus, and here's the kicker, MOST PEOPLE SUPPORT ENTITLEMENT PROGRAMS

Most people support being the BENEFICIARY of entitlement programs. Most people support the PROMISES of entitlement programs. But invariably, as each program fails to deliver what is promised at the costs that were claimed, support goes down. When SS starts drawing out of the general fund, support will drop. What then? You have four generations of Americans all living their life with the promise of Security when they hit the magic 65, and the bottom's about the drop out.


RE: And we should care...... why?
By Reclaimer77 on 12/3/2009 5:16:02 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
New Orleans is indicative of the occasionally prohibitive costs of trying to keep Mama Nature at bay.


Prohibitive ? Please study some history. New Orleans is priceless for it's sea port, river access, and oil refining. Obtaining New Orleans has helped make this country what it is.

You people act like Katrina was a yearly event. Compared to the value of that state, the cost in keep it dry is peanuts.


RE: And we should care...... why?
By mindless1 on 12/3/2009 6:34:08 PM , Rating: 2
On the contrary, when it flooded my life wasn't disrupted one bit except for interruptions in the regular news on the tele.

That doesn't mean I don't feel for the victims but the US is certainly not fragile enough that the "value" of any one state is actually priceless. Perhaps the lives of the residents are, but I tend to believe they choose to live there so what happens has to be seen in that context.


RE: And we should care...... why?
By SPOOFE on 12/3/2009 7:06:20 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
New Orleans is priceless for it's sea port, river access, and oil refining.

And we can't afford to make it a safe place to live or work. Without massive expenditures from the Feds - which don't even cover the bill - the place would be wiped off the map.

That doesn't sound like sound financial behavior.


RE: And we should care...... why?
By omnicronx on 12/4/2009 1:34:55 AM , Rating: 2
"When the levee breaks, mama, you got to move"

Not really commenting on this post, I just find it funny you say that New Orleans is not relevant to this story and you make the claim that it is a safe city..

Did you forget to take a history lesson? Or I am just imagining the fact that New Orleans was also decimated by a hurricane in a similar fashion 40 years ago.. (not to mention the various times throughout history that the Mississippi has flooded destroying levees and towns)

At least the people up there in Alaska were not dumb enough to rebuild in EXACTLY THE SAME PLACE..


RE: And we should care...... why?
By omnicronx on 12/4/2009 1:58:02 AM , Rating: 2
Just to be clear it has erupted at least 10 times in the past 1000 years, that kind recent activity leads many scientists to believe that it will erupt again.


RE: And we should care...... why?
By R3T4rd on 12/4/2009 5:00:58 AM , Rating: 2
Um...everytime I hear New Orleans...Big EZ...or Bayou, I have the urge to shoot zombies and or melee them with a chainsaw.

*Turns around*...you hear that? Its a jockey!!


RE: And we should care...... why?
By Omega215D on 12/3/2009 10:26:43 PM , Rating: 4
Actually it is known that making New Orleans a human habitat helped screwed up our natural defense against hurricanes. Yet people still insist on living there knowing full well that it is prone to severe flooding and storm patterns. Marsh lands and swamps help disperse the energy of the storm before hitting mainland. Science, it works b1tches!


RE: And we should care...... why?
By joeindian1551 on 12/3/2009 5:06:18 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
It is a very safe place to live


You mean in the flooding sense, right? B/c in the get stabbed in the back sense not so much.


RE: And we should care...... why?
By daInvincibleGama on 12/4/2009 1:02:15 AM , Rating: 2
lol.

I've been there and that's not really true in all areas, though. Crime is easier in some areas (like the Lower 9th) because the resources the city needs are just not there.


RE: And we should care...... why?
By Suntan on 12/4/2009 11:20:34 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Crime is easier in some areas (like the Lower 9th) because the resources the city needs are just not there.


…Yeah, that’s the only reason for the crime in that area. The “resources” aren’t there…

I bet where I grew up, we had less police enforcement both per capita and per square mile of area, yet I never had to worry about crime at that level.

And if you’re going to make the argument that by resources you mean “education” or “good jobs” or anything like that, I again call bunk on you. I grew up in a very poor, rural area with small schools that weren’t overly funded by the state or the feds, and there was little to no jobs other than the ones you went out and made for yourself. Yet, I never felt that the neighbor that lived down the road would take his anger over lack of “resources” out on me by robbing and then stabbing me.

-Suntan


RE: And we should care...... why?
By JediJeb on 12/4/2009 12:00:11 PM , Rating: 2
I have to agree on this one. I too grew up in a very rural area, we had 100 kids in my elementry school K-8 and there were two grades per room/teacher. Yet when I was in high school with 180 in my senior class, I and 3 of my class mates from my 8th grade class ( total of 14 of us) were in the top 3% of the highschool class.

Seems the high crime rate and lower levels of education come more from placing too many people into too small a space. Cramming people into a tiny space just causes irritation and conflicts from lack of personal space and privacy.


RE: And we should care...... why?
By Suntan on 12/4/2009 12:49:09 PM , Rating: 2
I would say that close proximity by itself is not the true culprit, but an indirect byproduct. People that live in more rural areas seem to be more self reliant. People that tend to bunch together in sh1tholes do so because they survive based on the sheep herd principle. And when you have a big herd of sheep all together, it’s really easy for one or two lazy deadbeats to figure out that life can be a lot better when you become a wolf in the middle of that sheep heard. With the rest of those people being the sheep that they are, they never bother to do anything about it.

None of the above is meant to say that all city living is like this and all country living is perfect. I choose to live in a suburban city area, and I also know there are a lot of lazy deadbeat hillbillies living out in the sticks. This is *only* an observation about sh!thole areas and how lazy people with nothing worth staying for will still prefer to stay with the status quo before lifting a finger to get a little better life.

Now I know it’s tragically un-PC to call people out for being lazy pieces of garbage, but that’s what they are. People that continue to live in sh!thole squalor year after year while bellyaching that the government has let them down are a drain on the rest of us. They aren’t going to further the human race long term, and they aren’t going to provide or produce anything that will improve our lives while we are living in the short term. The best thing they can give the rest of the members of society is that temporary, yet ill placed, sense of compassion when they drop a couple bucks into the fund-of-the-month cup sitting on whatever counter they are at.

Sure the common response is that you shouldn’t be so quick to judge… these people do not have the same chances to get anywhere, blah blah. But as I’ve asked before here, how many thousands of Mexicans do you suppose have left their families, traveled thousands of miles (through a military-esque border crossing, through many miles of deadly desert, found transportation to get hundreds to thousands of miles further, obtain a job - roofing houses in the winter or gutting livestock in a meat rendering plant - that pays them money and housing in an area that they don’t even speak the language while the local government tries to find them and remove them) all so that they could provide a better life for themselves and to send money back to their families, while the deadbeats sat for years on the curbside of their blown down house and bellyached to any camera news crew that would come by in need of a 3 minute “heartbreaker” news segment to fill up the end of their nightly newscast?

It’s also a common one to hear that it is not that easy to leave an area where you grew up and move away from family, etc. etc. but again, I would argue that of the Mexicans. From what I have seen of their culture (my wife’s home town in the Midwest got a meat packing plant about 6 years ago so it is now overrun with illegals) they put more value on family and tradition than most of American societies. Now I’d loved to have settled down closer to my family so my parents could be closer to their grandkids, but that was in direct conflict with being able to secure a safe financial foundation (also know as a career) for myself and my family, so that was too bad.

So in closing, I would say that the closely condensed sh!tholes are not the cause of crime and impoverishment, but the result of the mindset of the people that have attraction to those areas.

-Suntan


RE: And we should care...... why?
By hashish2020 on 12/4/2009 3:11:02 PM , Rating: 1
Yea because in some hick town you'd have to drive 300 miles to find someone it is worth your time to rob

Harsh, but true


RE: And we should care...... why?
By Suntan on 12/5/2009 7:15:24 PM , Rating: 2
I'm betting I can find better things in a hick town than I can in the slum neighborhoods like the lower 9th in New Orleans...

-Suntan


RE: And we should care...... why?
By omnicronx on 12/4/2009 1:25:37 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
the money allocated to reinforcing it spent on other Democratic slush funds
LoL, is there ever a post where you or FIT are not trying to push your right wing agenda?

Blaming a the destruction a hurricane caused on a political party is just plain childish. Do you realize how powerful a category 5 hurricane is?

At least 155MPH with storm surge of 18+ feet hitting a city in which parts are 10 feet below see level and you blame it on a political party?? Levees can only do so much, and in parts of the city where the water had raised almost 30 feet, are you really trying to imply that something could have been done about it?

Stop playing the blame game like a little child. Katrina was a terrible event, and I surely believe that much of the aftermath never should have happened, but lets not forget how powerful mother nature can be.


By MamiyaOtaru on 12/4/2009 5:03:03 AM , Rating: 2
this is funny considering how many people blamed it on Bush


By theapparition on 12/4/2009 9:45:17 AM , Rating: 2
While I partially agree with you in that blaming political forces for the actual Katrina event is wrong, I need to correct a few points for you.

Katrina did not hit NO as a catagory 5 storm. The early morning after the storm, the levees held, only later in the day did they completely break and flood most of the city. The investigation into the failure concluded that the Corp of Engineers and city of NO failed to maintain the levees and pumps properly with money that was allocated for that actual task.

Also, lest we forget that the governer recommended an evacuation and the Mayor ignored it. Plenty of blame to go around, but it's funny that Bush (as clueless as he was) got all the blame for causing it.


RE: And we should care...... why?
By SPOOFE on 12/4/2009 4:31:35 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Blaming a the destruction a hurricane caused on a political party is just plain childish.

You're right. Congress is responsible for the funds, and consistently, for the past several decades, Congress has failed to provide the Corps of Engineers with enough money to actually cover the task of maintaining the levees and pumps adequately. It's been the fault of both Republicans and Democrats alike.

The big lesson to be learned, it's that people need to spend a little less attention on the Prez and a little more on their Congresscritters. Even at Bush's lowest approval ratings, Congress's were almost half that.


By chunkymonster on 12/4/2009 10:34:12 AM , Rating: 3
Reminds me of the Sam Kinison comedy routine where he goes off about the people starving in Ethopia...YOU CAN'T GROW FOOD IN SAND!


By marvdmartian on 12/6/2009 7:13:41 AM , Rating: 2
Agree with NOLA (I thought they should have torn down a couple small mountains in Colorado, then used the material to fill in the NOLA basin, until it was 20+ feet ABOVE sea level! LOL). San Francisco is a combination of reclaimed (filled) land, which has the most significant damage during earthquakes, and would be lost on a sea level rise, and bedrock, which likely wouldn't.

But I think the important point here is that for tens of thousands of years, nature and mankind have had to advance and retreat from natural conditions of flooding, ice ages, etc......and have survived just fine. Now that "global warming" is a convenient mistruth to quote, we have to feel sorry for them, and spend jillions of dollars figuring out how to move their town a mile inland.

Sadly, it seems it was easier to move the Cape Hatteras lighthouse:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cape_Hatteras_Lightho...
than it will be to figure out what to do with a podunk Alaskan town. **SIGH**


RE: And we should care...... why?
By kattanna on 12/3/2009 2:28:44 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
The fact is that these people were living in a marginal place that was going to fall into the sea as soon as we went from a cooling cycle to a warming cycle, man-made/helped or not!


exactly. it still amazes me how some people think the earth is a STATIC entity, when its anything but. albeit it moves at a slower pace, but it is ALWAYS changing.

people, just like the rest of the flora and fauna of the planet need to adapt to change or become extinct to make room for those that can best make use of the change. has been, and always will be this way.


RE: And we should care...... why?
By cochy on 12/3/2009 2:28:07 PM , Rating: 2
I wonder what people will say when Morocco crashes back into NYC in a few million years from now.


RE: And we should care...... why?
By Hiawa23 on 12/3/2009 3:31:21 PM , Rating: 1
few million years from now.

not really a concern to my life...

a few million years, come on.

We won't say anything if that happens, LOL...


RE: And we should care...... why?
By cochy on 12/3/2009 3:37:19 PM , Rating: 2
Hmm the Hawaiian island also erode at a very quick pace. Honolulu will eventually fall into the Pacific much sooner than a few million years. I wonder what people will blame that on.


RE: And we should care...... why?
By ClownPuncher on 12/3/2009 3:59:41 PM , Rating: 2
You do know they are growing, right? Since there are volcanoes and whatever


RE: And we should care...... why?
By Keeir on 12/3/2009 4:12:04 PM , Rating: 3
The ones without active volcanoes are disappearing very rapidly. There are two reasons for this

#1. Small islands get erosion a relatively high percentage of thier land (since a high percentage is coastal land)

#2. Islands on volcanic hot spots tend to sink very quickly afterwards due to moving off the hot spot and literally the entire floor sinking away. Consider Iceland? That hotspot has existed for a long long time. There are actually segments under the ocean now that used to be islands before the hotspot created iceland.

Heck, Pacific Atolls at all are caused by the erosion, decay, and sinking of pacific volcanoe islands. (A Darwin theory which is likely mostly correct)


RE: And we should care...... why?
By cochy on 12/3/2009 4:10:26 PM , Rating: 3
Really? If you're interested in the geology of the region you should look it up, it's very cool.

There are many island that make up Hawaii. Only the Big island is growing. That's where the volcano is. Which is actually sitting on top of a giant stationary hotspot. As the Pacific plate moves over the hotspot new islands are created (the current one being the Big island). The old island eventually erode back under the Pacific. If you look at a topology map of the ocean floor you'll notice that the Hawaiian island chain almost stretches almost.


RE: And we should care...... why?
By cochy on 12/3/2009 4:55:36 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Hawaiian island chain almost stretches almost


Stretches to Japan. Yikes, kinda got distracted thought I wrote that but turns out I merely thought about it!


RE: And we should care...... why?
By omnicronx on 12/4/2009 1:52:35 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
There are many island that make up Hawaii. Only the Big island is currently growing. That's where the volcano is. Which is actually sitting on top of a giant stationary hotspot. As the Pacific plate moves over the hotspot new islands are created (the current one being the Big island).
fixed!!!

The big island is the only place in Hawaii that currently has an active volcano, but dormant volcano's still have the possibility of eruption. The big island for example has 3 of such volcano's, two of which have erupted in the last 100 years.

The 'currently' is because of Maui ;) Haleakala is still a dormant volcano which resides on the east end of Maui.(Went up there to watch the sun rise and it was one of the most spectacular things I have ever seen)


RE: And we should care...... why?
By omnicronx on 12/4/2009 1:58:38 AM , Rating: 2
Just to be clear it has erupted at least 10 times in the past 1000 years, that kind recent activity leads many scientists to believe that it will erupt again.

__


RE: And we should care...... why?
By Spivonious on 12/3/2009 3:42:17 PM , Rating: 1
They'll say "if only those idiots in the 21st century had lowered their CO2 emissions!"

:P


RE: And we should care...... why?
By HrilL on 12/3/2009 4:59:49 PM , Rating: 4
more likely they'll be laughing at how we thought we were the cause of global climate change. And tried to stop it with massive economic impact.


RE: And we should care...... why?
By cochy on 12/3/2009 3:03:22 PM , Rating: 3
Oh and btw if you compare the "before and after" pictures of the town, I didn't notice one home missing from before warming. Do I need glasses?


RE: And we should care...... why?
By BZDTemp on 12/3/2009 3:19:17 PM , Rating: 2
I think you need grey matter!

The picture does not show the whole village - how hard can that be to realize.

What the picture shows is some 5-6 yards of ground gone with very little left before more houses will disappear.


RE: And we should care...... why?
By cochy on 12/3/2009 3:20:01 PM , Rating: 1
In fact the shore line doesn't seem to have changed in those pictures either if you look closely. The only difference is a stormy sea and a garbage can that was moved closer to the shore.


RE: And we should care...... why?
By JediJeb on 12/3/2009 3:34:43 PM , Rating: 3
There is a little more gone than that, by looking at the utility poles you can see it. But what isn't mentioned is the time difference from one photo until the next. Also I have seen more ground than that lost in a single week during a flood of the Ohio River. My parents farm lost over one acre in a single slide once. We sat on the front porch and watched trees and all just start floating down river. This was in the 70s when they were telling us we were headed into the next ice age too lol.

I don't fault these people for putting their houses there either, because the article says they were forced to build there by the government. From the looks of it, even if it was solid rock it would eventually be eroded away, though much more slowly.


RE: And we should care...... why?
By cochy on 12/3/2009 4:02:49 PM , Rating: 2
The poles seem to be the same distance from the shore. The camera angle is different. The camera was also moved back to make it appear that the shore moved closer. Also the garbage can was moved to. These photographs are misleading!!


RE: And we should care...... why?
By Hiawa23 on 12/3/2009 3:27:28 PM , Rating: 2
Is it human nature to believe in something that's not there? I don't believe in global warming. Let me put it this way, I think the planet goes through it's own cycle regardless of what humans do, but hats off to those getting rich scaring folks.


RE: And we should care...... why?
By SPOOFE on 12/3/2009 3:55:35 PM , Rating: 2
It is human nature to want to understand one's environment, for doing so allows a greater chance of survival. Early humanoids that didn't have the understanding urge were less likely to survive and procreate; thus our species is dominated with this primal need to have explanations for phenomena. The problem with the urge being so deep in our psyche is that it is irrational and beyond the scope of the reasonable parts of our brain to control, and so people will often rush to accept an explanation in order to satisfy the irrational urge instead of rationally understanding why they have that urge and thus fail to apply error-checking on the explanation they've adopted.

It's the same source for religion, too.


RE: And we should care...... why?
By Omega215D on 12/3/2009 10:30:02 PM , Rating: 2
The earth has gone through periods where it wasn't suitable for certain species and said species either adapt and change or die off. Just because it might become unsuitable for us doesn't mean it's not desirable for another organism or doesn't mean we won't cope, because we most likely can.


RE: And we should care...... why?
By Grabo on 12/4/2009 4:04:26 AM , Rating: 2
I'm sorry, is there another species that clears the rainforest? Releases massive amounts of various chemicals into the air, land and water? Why does 'background extinction rate' refer to times before humans?

Your "things adapt or they don't, we prolly will" sentiment can be used to rationalize anything we do and is as such worthless.


RE: And we should care...... why?
By kattanna on 12/4/2009 11:08:55 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
I'm sorry, is there another species that clears the rainforest? Releases massive amounts of various chemicals into the air , land and water ?


actually, yes. if you had ever bothered to actually study the planets history, you will have read about the early algea that started to release oxygen into the ocean & atmosphere. when the O2 levels reached a certain level, it acted like poison on other species and caused many to die.

we humans are NOT the only species to have altered the planet.


RE: And we should care...... why?
By Suntan on 12/4/2009 12:00:24 PM , Rating: 2
May sound trite, but beavers are known to significantly change their surroundings. Flying over wilderness areas of Alaska and Canada, it is quite easy to see areas affected by beavers as the water systems are dark brown from the stagnate pools they have made for themselves. Causing other wildlife to leave the area for water systems that are more sustaining.

Also, elephants are known to cause great change to their surroundings, uprooting trees and the like. There has been detailed studies tracking elephant herds and linking it to the entire elimination of forested areas being turned into grass lands.

Now neither of these two impact the earth as much as humans do, but then there numbers are not nearly as high as humans (mostly because they did not evolve to be so well suited to their environment and capable of adapting to it as humans are.)

Now you can take the self hating approach that humans are no more important (or even less important if you’re a PETA kook) than animals, but if you’re going to take the fatalistic approach that all living things are equally unimportant, then it really doesn’t matter if we are causing the earth to change or not.

-Suntan


RE: And we should care...... why?
By Grabo on 12/4/2009 3:22:55 PM , Rating: 2
Using caps does NOT reinforce a point, it merely irritates readers.

"The Great Oxidation event", when the atmosphere changed composition to include lots of oxygen.
First of, there is a rather lot of uncertainty regarding this shift, like what triggered it.
Regardless, you are no doubt right in that a lot of anaerobes died then. How complex were these organisms though compared to what exists today? How much of a choice did the cyanobacteria have when they stated to multiply like crazy?

You can't equal humans with algae for a number of reasons ,the number one being that algae has no will; it can't decide anything.
Number two: the only thing that drove cyanobacteria, like other non-sentient things, was to survive and spread. We have factories producing dolls that release all sorts of chemicals.
Point being, we release a lot of things that will not potentially give rise to higher lifeforms but rather just kill lifeforms; we have a choice; we don't need to to survive.

I mean really,comparing an oxidation of the atmosphere that happened without a conscious thought and yet enabled more complex lifeforms with acid rain and quicksilver in fish and barren ground where rainforest used to be because the trees were the only thing keeping the thin soil in place and a million other things seems utterly warped.


RE: And we should care...... why?
By SPOOFE on 12/5/2009 6:29:09 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You can't equal humans with algae for a number of reasons ,the number one being that algae has no will; it can't decide anything.

That's moving the goalposts. You didn't specify anything about will; you specified if any species has done some of the things man has done, and the answer to what you probably intended to be a rhetorical question is "Yes."

Many species are destructive, even to the point of ruining their environment. There's no magic force keeping all non-human elements of nature in "balance"; there's often a balance in most environments because millions of years of evolution created that balance. But herbivores will eat whatever they can get, and decimate plant species; carnivores will eat whatever they can get, and if unchecked will also decimate. It happens.

quote:
Number two: the only thing that drove cyanobacteria, like other non-sentient things, was to survive and spread

And these things don't drive man? Of course they do. Granted, we have a rational understanding of the world to temper our behaviors, but we're just as subject to the wiles of natural urges as other animals.

quote:
I mean really,comparing an oxidation of the atmosphere that happened without a conscious thought and yet enabled more complex lifeforms with acid rain and quicksilver in fish and barren ground where rainforest used to be because the trees were the only thing keeping the thin soil in place and a million other things seems utterly warped.

Why, because the oxidation ultimately benefited us? You're only moving the goalposts again. It's clear that man is not the only species to have drastic environment-altering effects on the planet. You've only established DIFFERENT environment-altering effects that don't directly benefit us as a group.


RE: And we should care...... why?
By kattanna on 12/7/2009 12:19:30 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
That's moving the goalposts


aye, it was. thanks for pointing that out.

quote:
You've only established DIFFERENT environment-altering effects that don't directly benefit us as a group


and you know, im actually of the mind that all this warming IS good for us as a whole.

can you imagine all the farm able land that would open up if siberia became farm able, or even alaska or canada. with proper warming, we could actually double or triple the amount of farm able land the world has. how thats a bad thing, i still cant figure out.


RE: And we should care...... why?
By omnicronx on 12/3/2009 3:40:18 PM , Rating: 4
The ocean can cut through rock given enough time, what on earth makes them think that permafrost is not susceptible either? I have a cottage up north (waaaaaaaayyyy up there) and every year we lose around 3-4 inches off the edge of the lake due to erosion and this a lake, not an ocean with multi foot waves crashing into the shore. Yes temperature can affect this too, but its not the main cause, it will merely accelerate a totally natural process.

I also always love to hear the statement 'When the warming began' as though there was a particular date marked in their calendar.


By Spivonious on 12/3/2009 4:00:43 PM , Rating: 2
It began right after the last "little" ice age ended around 1850.


RE: And we should care...... why?
By hiscross on 12/3/2009 4:34:42 PM , Rating: 3
"Shelton and Clara Kokeok fear every day that their home may soon slip into the ocean."

Maybe moving would help? Just a tinny thought.


RE: And we should care...... why?
By Omega215D on 12/3/2009 10:24:17 PM , Rating: 2
The ice bridge that used to connect us to Russia has disappeared thanks to global warming... but wait there were no factories or cars... just natural warming! OMG!!11!

they should be happy that we are not one giant continent otherwise the water currents will become screwed up and "Snowball Earth" occurs yet again.

Yeah, I was watching the History Channel's segment on life on earth again. Seriously people should watch it to get a glimpse of what earth most probably was like before modern man.


RE: And we should care...... why?
By Googer on 12/4/2009 3:23:21 AM , Rating: 3
Its kind of like building your house on an ice shelf then one day complaining that your home is adrift in the sea and your car has sunken to the ocean depths.


Why?
By cochy on 12/3/2009 2:23:10 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
The loss of the village threatens to wipe out the Kokeoks' centuries-old culture


Why can't they move and continue their culture else where?




RE: Why?
By kattanna on 12/3/2009 2:30:33 PM , Rating: 5
the article even said all but 1 home had been moved. how moving inland enough to keep your home from falling into the ocean destroys your "culture" is beyond me, but it does make for a good bleeding heart headline, doesnt it? ;>)


RE: Why?
By ClownPuncher on 12/3/2009 2:53:02 PM , Rating: 3
I doubt even bleeding hearts will give 2 squirts of piss about these idiots who built their homes on a DIRT CLIFF above the ocean.

I built my house in front of a glacier and I am so pissed that it destroyed my home after 20 years!


RE: Why?
By Davelo on 12/3/2009 6:24:11 PM , Rating: 2
Going by the pictures, it looks to me like simply ocean wave erosion.

Why do I get the feeling some people stand to make a bundle off of global warming at our expense? I think it's a scam. Just another way for somebody to get their hand into my back pocket. This the way the world is. If there was not any money in it we never would have heard of global warming.


RE: Why?
By stilltrying on 12/3/2009 7:02:18 PM , Rating: 2
“The common enemy of humanity is man.
In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up
with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming,
water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome.
The real enemy then, is humanity itself."
- Club of Rome


RE: Why?
By Runiteshark on 12/3/2009 7:01:27 PM , Rating: 2
Absolutely, it makes me want to buy a Toyota prius right now.

Then again, look who wrote the article..


RE: Why?
By Suntan on 12/4/2009 1:00:04 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
it makes me want to buy a Toyota prius right now.


that picture makes me want to push a prius off the side of the road into the water...

...at least then it will act like a break for their shore and reduce the errosion.

-Suntan


RE: Why?
By rudolphna on 12/3/09, Rating: -1
RE: Why?
By cochy on 12/3/2009 3:12:40 PM , Rating: 2
I'm sure it's not "fun". That wasn't at all what I was asking.


RE: Why?
By Camikazi on 12/3/2009 3:14:20 PM , Rating: 5
Might not be fun, but unless you wanna LOSE EVERYTHING then you do it, if you stay in that spot and just cry and whine when you're house is destroyed you are an idiot.


RE: Why?
By mindless1 on 12/3/2009 6:43:54 PM , Rating: 3
It's quite simple. Do something wrong and later you have to fix the mistake. It was simply wrong to build homes there, and two people standing around to have their picture taken instead of the picture being of them moving to safer ground...

Sorry but they are idiots.


RE: Why?
By BZDTemp on 12/3/09, Rating: 0
RE: Why?
By ZachDontScare on 12/3/2009 3:28:37 PM , Rating: 3
Centuries of history? As another poster pointed out, they've only been there for a few decades. And then they were only located there because the government forced them to live there. If you want to 'blame' anyone, blame the meddling do-gooders.


RE: Why?
By mindless1 on 12/3/2009 6:49:14 PM , Rating: 2
Please explain how the government forced them to live there. We rounded them up, guns drawn, and posted guards that shoot on sight if anyone attempts to move to a different area than the edge of a cliff?

Preposterous. As we see right now, they all could have moved to a safer area than the edge of an eroding cliff.

Tell me this, if you were standing on a block of ice and it was melting, would you step away from the edge or just refuse to move and fall off, and if you fell who would you blame but yourself?

This is not so different than two people deciding they will build a home inside a volcano, then deciding when it erupts that they will not budge an inch because they have "roots" there. Nevermind we knew what a volcano does by definition, somehow if they will to live there the facts change?


RE: Why?
By cochy on 12/3/2009 3:28:20 PM , Rating: 2
This isn't a matter of not showing respect. People have negative reactions to sensationalist headlines of situations blow out of proportions plus using a people's plight to push a political agenda.

History is replete with countless examples of peoples becoming displaced, this isn't a abnormal occurrence. Some displaced cultures thrive in new lands.


RE: Why?
By AEvangel on 12/3/2009 5:08:13 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Secondly moving from a place with centuries of history will mean there is a burial ground, maybe houses that go back for generations and so on.


quote:
Shishmaref was named in 1821 by explorer Lt. Otto von Kotzebue, of the Imperial Russian Navy, after Capt. Lt. Gleb Shishmaryov who accompanied him on his exploration. (3 December 2009) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shishmaref,_Alaska


So the area was named some 188 years ago, but if you really look further into the village and their culture.

quote:
Shishmaref is a traditional Inupiat Eskimo village. Shishmaref, Alaska - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (3 December 2009) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shishmaref,_Alaska


quote:
In recent years oil and other resources have been an important revenue source for the Inupiat. Inupiat - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (3 December 2009) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inupiaq


So if you believe in AGW(which I don't) then they are simply reaping what they sow...or I wonder if their tribal elders will give back all that evil money since it is destroying their culture???


oh well
By The Imir of Groofunkistan on 12/3/2009 2:19:12 PM , Rating: 2
oh yeah, well global warming saved my marriage.




RE: oh well
By kyleb2112 on 12/3/2009 2:54:07 PM , Rating: 2
Global Warming killed my dad.


RE: oh well
By Camikazi on 12/3/2009 3:15:45 PM , Rating: 5
Hello. My name is Íñigo Montoya. You drowned my house. Prepare to die.


RE: oh well
By JediJeb on 12/3/2009 3:39:34 PM , Rating: 2
Aaaassss yoooouuuu wwwwiiiissssshhhhhh!


RE: oh well
By Anoxanmore on 12/4/2009 9:44:40 AM , Rating: 2
You beat me to it... so mean.


RE: oh well
By JediJeb on 12/4/2009 1:54:12 PM , Rating: 2
Be careful or the ROUSs will get you.


RE: oh well
By SPOOFE on 12/5/2009 6:31:17 PM , Rating: 2
I don't believe they exist.


RE: oh well
By blowfish on 12/3/2009 3:23:36 PM , Rating: 2
Global warming ate my hamster!

I demand compensation!


Puff Peice
By Keeir on 12/3/2009 2:42:15 PM , Rating: 5
Jason, I am really disgusted with logic behind this article.

You make it seem as if this village has been in place for centuries in the same location and just now does it need to move.

Some interesting tidbits from the CNN article

"Shishmaref's people were nomadic, following seals and caribou, until the U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs built a school on the island in the early 1900s and forced Inupiat children to attend. Some residents still resent that school; they say it punished those who spoke Inupiaq and stifled other aspects of the Native culture.

Over the decades, though, the community adjusted to its new stationary existence. And today, people are attached to this place."

and

"When Shelton [2009 age 65] was young, Shishmaref was nothing but an outpost of one-room sod houses with no electricity; some villagers made windows out of "Eskimo plastic," the translucent intestines of the bearded seal."

The Facts appear to be that when in the mid 1900s (probably around 1950-1970) that the majority of these homes were built too close to the Sea. Why? Because no one knew what the normal rate of errosion here was! These people were nomadic in the 1800s. Its a island not even 1/2 mile in width that -might- disappear in 100+ years. Guess what? This has occured in the past.

It might seem to be insentive, but the truth is that the "culture" doesn't exist anymore regardless. They fly in materials to build homes. The guy is wearing a Nike coat! They use ipods and eat ramen noodles.

Give us a break from ridicolously inaccurate puff peices.




RE: Puff Peice
By JediJeb on 12/3/2009 3:23:56 PM , Rating: 3
Just like the people near me who build their homes as close to the Ohio River as possible, then cry when the floods take them out. What do they do, they rebuild in the exact same spot proclaiming it won't happen again, until it does. Funny thing is the 100+ year old farm houses in the same area are all built on top of hills, because back then people were smart enough to know that you have to live with nature and not be arogant and think you can control it. Plus when they didn't have insurance back then, they planned ahead so they didn't have to keep starting over all the time.

As for the story, I wonder how big that island was 1000 years ago? If it was only a few feet larger, then maybe the problem is rapid climate change, if it was 3 or 4 times larger or more and has been eroding this whole time then the problem is building in a place that was doomed to disappear anyway. Just like the beaches on the east coast, where they try to regulate to the point of fining people for walking on the beach which causes erosion. It's a beach, it is going to erode. The only reason they try to stop it is because less property means less taxes, and if it all washes into the ocean they no longer have something to tax. People think they are powerful enough to preserve the Earth just the way it is now, but it is going to change no matter what we do, it always has. The sooner people figure out how to adapt and change with the Earth, the sooner we will stop wasting money trying to make the Earth do what we want it to do which is a futile endevor at the least.


RE: Puff Peice
By blowfish on 12/3/2009 3:22:28 PM , Rating: 3
I used to be critical of Jason for covering articles I'd already read on the BBC site - but then the hacked email scandal happened and Jason's article was so much more informative than the BBC one. The BBC site made no mention of the email contents, and the reason for the hack.

With this one, it looks like the residents feel they might somehow get a piece of that taxpayer-funded pie if they attribute the erosion to Global warming - though they obviously have to learn how to play the game, since all the real pros now call it "Climate Change", which enables them to have their pie and eat it.

I was hoping that Jason would do a piece on yet another sky is falling down report predicting massive sea level rise due to the melting of the Antarctic ice shelf. The "scientists" who wrote that report were predicting that because the hole in the ozone layer was healing, thanks to efforts to curb cfc usage, there would be increased warming leading to the ice melt. All of that despite the evidence within their own report that the larger portion of the ice was actually growing. If these so and so's weren't the recipients of vast amounts of public funding, it would be hilarious.


RE: Puff Peice
By Keeir on 12/3/2009 4:16:17 PM , Rating: 2
I don't mind time delay.

But I do mind repassing off in-complete information without a filter.

Jason did do a good article climate emails. "Climategate"

And he could have done a good job here.

For example. In 1970 to 1990, the shore erroded 1 foot. From 1990 to 2009, the shore has erroded 1 meter!

Now there is some evidence. Even CNN is missing anything like that.


RE: Puff Peice
By kattanna on 12/3/2009 4:00:47 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
The guy is wearing a Nike coat


LOL yes he is. too funny

very good info, and should stand as proof as why you dont want the government interfering with your life.


RE: Puff Peice
By GeorgeOu on 12/3/2009 7:37:47 PM , Rating: 3
Great post, this should end the thread and be posted as a response to the main story.

The real scandal is the $200M being spent to move these homes. I wonder how many homes there are. I would not be surprised if there were only about 100 homes, and they're all going to get $1M homes now?


Fine work, Mick
By bissimo on 12/3/2009 3:38:20 PM , Rating: 5
I have to say, Mick did a fine job with this one. He found the most absurd story about global warming on the web and regurgitated here on Daily Tech. I think he's figured out that blogging about issues that get the reactionary nuts stirred up is the best way to keep hits up and ad dollars moving.

Kudos, Mick! Captain of Industry! William Randolph Heart Reborn!




RE: Fine work, Mick
By cochy on 12/3/2009 3:51:24 PM , Rating: 2
It's funny cause it's true.


RE: Fine work, Mick
By HotFoot on 12/3/2009 4:54:10 PM , Rating: 3
I'd argue most of the other global-warming articles were somehow related to science or technology. I don't see how this one is, at all.


RE: Fine work, Mick
By mindless1 on 12/3/2009 6:53:31 PM , Rating: 2
Even with real "news" agencies, it's still a business in which your primary goal is high readership, reporting stories you feel will draw people in.


RE: Fine work, Mick
By inv on 12/4/2009 3:08:22 AM , Rating: 2
I never post, but I must.

This is the _worst_ article i've ever read and the biggest waste of my life so far.

Cheers Mick.


$200 Million to move 13 homes?
By Leper Messiah on 12/3/2009 2:42:34 PM , Rating: 4
Are they all getting 10,000 SQFT mansions or something? That seems like an absurd amount of money to move so few residents.




RE: $200 Million to move 13 homes?
By HotFoot on 12/3/2009 4:56:46 PM , Rating: 3
Probably the contractors doing the work have made or are about to make a really generous political campaign contribution.


By mindless1 on 12/3/2009 6:55:12 PM , Rating: 2
Probably due to them claiming their homes are somehow so darn special that they have to be preserved instead of just building a new home like any sane person would do.


Since when...
By ThePooBurner on 12/3/2009 3:37:37 PM , Rating: 5
Since when is the ocean beating against something and eroding it the fault of global warming? Come on!




RE: Since when...
By IcePickFreak on 12/3/2009 6:40:18 PM , Rating: 2
Truly, this is in some of the harshest climates settled by man next to the harshest seas on the planet. These people are just being used as tools by other people with agendas in the climate change saga.

In other news, a 2ton boulder tumbled down a mountain, somewhere, today. It's believed increased solar radiation is the cause.


Money making opportunity
By mafart on 12/3/2009 4:51:46 PM , Rating: 2
I think I am going to start doing seminars on how to make money on real estate.
Apparently there are huge profits to be made selling property located just inland from the crumbling oceanfront in AK. The cost of the moving 13 homes was $200M; that's more than...(Start>Programs>Accessories>Calcula tor)...than $15M for each home!
Seriously though: I don't count myself as a skeptic on climate change but articles like this and the stuff about "Climategate" have me shaking my head in disbelief.




RE: Money making opportunity
By Scabies on 12/3/2009 5:13:05 PM , Rating: 2
curious. they likely could have built newer, better homes for far cheaper. a good amount of that $200m was probably spent on either the cost of getting everything to a super remote location, or the government oversight "necessary" to commission such a project.


RE: Money making opportunity
By Lerianis on 12/5/2009 8:59:48 AM , Rating: 2
And the government shouldn't have paid for this... they should have just bought these people new homes IDENTICAL to the old ones, which would have been much cheaper in the long run.


By Targon on 12/4/2009 7:42:49 AM , Rating: 2
People have to remember that we have no hard data on most periods of life on this planet. It may have been a LOT warmer, and the ice age cooled things down, and the planet is finally getting back to where it would normally be.

The influence of humanity MAY be having an impact in getting the planet there sooner, but it is impossible to know for sure. I do know that ANYONE living very near the water may experience flooding.

Look up and down the Atlantic or Pacific coastline, or a river, and you will hear stories about erosion and people living too close to the water losing their homes to a flood due to storms, or excess rainfall, or whatever. Dune Road on eastern Long Island, NY tends to get flooded every time a hurricane makes its way up here(we are overdue for a hurricane by years now). You see shifts in the coastline ALL the time due to the tides, and you have idiots who think that these changes can be stopped permanently. The most they can hope for is to delay the inevitable for a few years so they can sell their house before the ocean or river take it from them.




By NT78stonewobble on 12/4/2009 8:57:43 AM , Rating: 2
Agreed. Noone knows for sure whether the planet is heating up or cooling down. Neither does anyone know for sure whether mankind is responcible for none, some or all of the effect.

However personally I don't think it is responsible that mankind contributes a rather large amount of co2 to the atmosphere any more than it was responsible to spray school children with DDT or use lead in gasoline.

Should we react with panicky solutions to it? No but steadily move away from coal and oil to nuclear power combined with wind, solar and geothermal power. And IMO much more nuclear and geothermal.


By SPOOFE on 12/5/2009 6:36:06 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
It may have been a LOT warmer

There are many indications that things have indeed been far warmer than today, at numerous points in history. You don't even have to go back to prehistoric times to find it (though that era gives a humongous amount of evidence). There's evidence of plowed fields in what is now Greenland's permafrost; Britain used to have a wine industry that surpasses France, but now it's far too cold and damp and lousy to grow wine grapes in any significant quantity.

There's a reason a lot of AGW graphs only go back 600 years; such a period is a the quickest of eyeblinks on geological scales, yet to the average person it is interpreted as a very long time.


adapt and change thats my motto
By scrapsma54 on 12/3/2009 2:34:35 PM , Rating: 2
Everything could go wrong when building on top of permafrost, especially on land that is near the ocean and sits 10Ft above sea level.




By scrapsma54 on 12/3/2009 2:45:26 PM , Rating: 2
I hate to double post, but has anyone been to the Cliffs of Martha's vineyard? Permafrost cliffs used to sit there, and now all that remains is clay cliff faces and and a beach in front of it. This town is becoming just that.


By sarahpalinswetvagina on 12/4/2009 12:08:11 PM , Rating: 2
or at least you'd think so after reading this article and subsequent comments. ad hominem attacks and anecdotal evidence seem to be the basis of nearly every argument on this thread. no wonder the rest of the world thinks you're a joke.




By hashish2020 on 12/4/2009 3:14:35 PM , Rating: 1
By thinks we're a joke you mean really wants our jobs

Where are you from that you are so magically above it all---trust me, wherever it is, I've probably been there (and might have lived there) and heard shit JUST AS BAD


oh noez!
By AntiV6 on 12/3/09, Rating: 0
RE: oh noez!
By Jalek on 12/3/2009 11:59:06 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah.. Palin shouldn't have been flying around so much, she should've stayed in her house with the view of Russia.

They should sue her.


Stay Home
By Machinegear on 12/3/2009 3:20:25 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Three students from the village of Shishmaref will travel to Copenhagen to attend the UN climate talks and serve as first hand witnesses, trying to convince the international community to act.


I hope they go by sled dogs. If they go by a large, polluting air plane, THEY MAY RETURN TO FIND THEIR ENTIRE HOME GONE!!!!

For the love of God kids, STAY HOME , PROTECT YOUR VILLAGE!




Let's spin this the other way
By Concreteboy9 on 12/3/2009 4:08:07 PM , Rating: 2
Even though the loss of that man's son is regrettable, I have to wonder, how many others have died from cold or overexposure in that area? If anything, they stand to benefit from a little heat. They may even be able to cultivate the land around there someday as the soil thaws out.




They should be moved to Detroit
By corduroygt on 12/3/2009 5:11:06 PM , Rating: 2
There are plenty of abandoned homes there...




natural cycle's of earth
By Codeman03xx on 12/3/2009 5:36:58 PM , Rating: 2
Earth goes through natural cycle's its freaking simple basic knowledge. Ice ages come and go, hot warm rain periods come and go. There isn't a damn thing we can do about it. Just like i say always if you don't like getting your house rocked by hurricanes/natural disasters you can always move. I mean come on those people in California that live on the coast with landslides are having the same problems with erosion and such. its just that in Alaska the whole place is covered with ice so when it melts people freak out.




By Randomblame on 12/4/2009 2:11:35 AM , Rating: 2
This just in:
My beer was just cold a few minutes ago, now it's warm! It's that darn global warming!

They took our jerbs!




This happens
By dgingeri on 12/4/2009 7:42:00 AM , Rating: 2
Remember Troy? Remember how they found it much farther inland than they originally thought? Know why? It's because the shoreline used to be much farther inland than it is now. That means sea levels were higher way back then. That must mean the world was warmer back then. Obviously, humanity didn't die out back then.

Back in what historians call the Medieval warm period, from 500-900AD, the climate was much warmer than it is now. They were growing wine grapes in Scotland for crying out loud. Greenland was a place where the Vikings raised herd animals on large plots of grassy fields. (So much for the glaciers being there "for tens of thousands of years.) Obviously, humanity wasn't wiped out back then.

This talk of "climate change" bugs the heck out of me. A warming planet means a good thing for us. More food production. More farming land capable of food production. Warmer weather overall. When it starts getting cooler, which stellar physicists are saying is soon because the Sun is cooling, we're going to have more problems.




By etrading60 on 12/7/2009 7:38:18 PM , Rating: 2
Dear Ladies and Gentlemen, Christmas sales, there are exquisite gift, here are the most fashionable and most
noble gift, please come to order.For details, please
consult: http://etradingitems.com




Easy Solution
By elgueroloco on 12/8/2009 3:48:16 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
rising sea levels may eventually make as many as 150 million people "climate refugees".


Easy solution: Move them to all the newly usable land in Greenland, northern Canada, and Siberia that will open up as ice melts.

Then, in a few thousand years when the next cooling cycle starts, there will be stories about how their descendants are crying because mankind's evil globe-cooling activities are causing advancing glaciers to destroy their homes, and only by giving quintillions of dollars and absolute social control to certain elite individuals can humanity save themselves.

At that time all these stories about global warming will be deleted from history by the UN Truth Committee.




And this is what we call irony.
By BioRebel on 12/3/2009 2:26:44 PM , Rating: 1
Major signs of climate change directly affecting human populations. And in the very state of Sarah Palin. Who would've thought? XD




It's not climate change...
By amanojaku on 12/3/2009 2:30:54 PM , Rating: 1
Dailytech bloggers = dumb
By puckalicious on 12/3/09, Rating: 0
"The Space Elevator will be built about 50 years after everyone stops laughing" -- Sir Arthur C. Clarke














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki