LAT: Island Shrinking by Global Warming... But for Over 100 Years?

The L.A. Times published a story on Sunday that is supposed to be just another global warming scare piece, but even they couldn't lie through their teeth in every instance because, while the island of Kivalina, Alaska has been shrinking, even the Times admits its been doing so for well over 100 years. It's hard to pin that on "global warming" since few claim that the phenomenon has been going on that long. After all, globaloney scaremongers pin global warming on CFCs and rising CO2 levels none of which were started until after the turn of the century from 1800s to the 1900s. So, why blame global warming when normal erosion has been at work on the island for hundreds of years? Ah, because it makes a better story to fit your ideological position, that's why of course!

But, despite common sense, the Times waxes despondent over the loss of this rather stark and unattractive island and the dissension it is sowing amongst the 400 residents there. And in doing so they miss a larger and much more interesting story.

"As global warming erodes their world, the residents of Kivalina battle the elements -- and now one another."

Oh, how worrisome... or is that wearisome?

But, even as the Times tries their darndest to pin the shrinking island's fate on global warming, the Times can't ignore the real truth here.

"Kivalina is disappearing, the victim of a warming world and a steady natural erosion that probably began long before the Eskimos settled here 100 years ago. "

Wait a minute. The island has been shrinking for more than 100 years? So, um, how can it be all caused by global warming? Who claims that has been going on for over 100 years? After all, the globaloney crowd says it's man's fault with all of his industry, cars and decadent lifestyles, right? Well, there wasn't much of that a' goin' on in the 1890s and before!

In any case, the global warming aspect is obviously ginned up to sell the story. But there is a more interesting story here than the one that the Times wants to explore -- though they do hint at it -- and that is the story of human stupidity and greed. The Times starts this part of the story with as silly a line as they can desperately trying to keep the focus on globaloney instead of people's stupidity.

“The prospect of Kivalina's disappearance has set off its own storm, jarring a place that, like most of global warming's early victims, has long struggled on the fringes of the planet.”

"A jarring place... global warming's early victims" yada, yada, yada. Oh, brother! But, what is this "storm" of which they speak? Ah, now THERE is a story!

“Most of the 400 residents -- filled with dreams of a new village with running water, better homes and, perhaps, a chance at a job -- want to leave.

The big questions are: To where? And how?

Village leaders have squabbled for years with state and federal officials over relocating, which could cost as much as $250 million. No one has offered to pay.

Residents themselves are divided over where to go. Some want to move to higher ground. Others want to stay on the coast, even at the risk of seeing their new homes eventually disappear to erosion and rising seas.”

Why the Times didn't pursue this angle too doggedly is obvious because they wanted to make the nonsense of global warming their point, but this is far more interesting. Why haven't these foolish people just moved to higher ground? Why? Well, heck isn't that obvious? They want someone else to pay for it, that's why!

These people are ridiculously sitting about twiddling their thumbs as their below sea level spit of land washes out from under them because they are too cheap to up and move to safer, and longer lasting terrain themselves. Apparently they are waiting for the government to come up with the cash to move them instead of doing it themselves. Talk about a stupid move!

But, this story does tell us one more important thing about globaloney even if you do want to believe in it. It takes hundreds of years to affect anything. See, these people have had well over 100 years to move to a new home. They weren't one day sitting about enjoying life and the next 10 feet under water. In fact, they've wasted over $3 million and many years already trying to stay on a doomed strip of land. So, even if you want to believe in global warming, people have plenty of time to react to the so-called changes it might bring. Unfortunately for sensationalism, a "disaster" hundreds of years in the making just doesn't seem so darn urgent, does it?

And do you want more stupidity? Some even said they’d move to other property where global warming would still wash them out. How stupid it that? So, why the heck should tax dollars be spent on moving them, anyway? They are obviously bound and determined to be washed out wherever they intend to move to. I say let ‘em sink!

But, here is the thing, folks: If global warming is going to place your home under water someday over the next 10 or 15 years…

MOVE TO HIGHER GROUND!

It doesn't seem like it takes too many brains to figure that out.