Island submerges as sea-levels rise


by Sunny
2nd April, 2010 at 10:56 am    

Of course, global warming is all a myth! All these fake islands submerging under water over time. Must be a conspiracy peddled by those ‘eco-fascists’!

A low-lying island in a sprawling mangrove delta which has been disputed by India and Bangladesh for almost 30 years will be squabbled over no more. It has disappeared beneath the waves.

In what experts say is an alarming indication of the danger posed by rising sea levels brought about by global warming, New Moore Island has become totally submerged. “It is definitely because of global warming,” said Professor Sugata Hazra of Jadavpur University in Kolkata. “The sea level has been rising at twice the previous rate in the years between 2002 and 2009. The sea level is rising in accordance with rising temperatures.”

Mmm… wonder what climate-change troofers have to say about this.


              Post to del.icio.us


Filed in: Environmentalism






26 Comments below   |  

Reactions: Twitter, blogs
  1. pickles

    Blog post:: Island submerges as sea-levels rise http://bit.ly/aeKE9n




  1. Old Holborn — on 2nd April, 2010 at 11:02 am  
  2. Sunny — on 2nd April, 2010 at 11:47 am  

    Hah! I knew someone was going to point to that.

    In fact, that article seems to be ripped from this Spectator piece:
    http://www.spectator.co.uk/essays/all/5749623/story-of-a-sinking-land.thtml

    The Spectator is of course infamous for peddling climate change troofers.

    And what does the author offer as his evidence to the contrary for the main island that sank?

    But later, as I examined the dramatic waterline of Ghoramara, I began to have doubts. There were steep, jagged mud cliffs, two or three metres high, marking where the rough sea had torn off strips of land in the last monsoon. Wouldn’t a submerging island sit a bit lower in the water? The other giveaway was the local names for the rivers. There’s the Matla (the drunken river), and the Ichamati (the free-willed river), both named because of the frequency with which they shift course, destroying land here and throwing up new land elsewhere.

    Firstly, no – rising sea levels don’t happen over night – they happen very slowly. And hence the submerging island wouldn’t necessarily sit lower in the water.

    The names of the rive give away nothing. All rivers shift pieces of mud from one place to another. That doesn’t submerge the surrounding land necessarily either.

    And that seems to be about the extent of his counter-argument. Then he moves on to another island.

    If about 2.2mm of Hazra’s 3.2mm came from ‘natural subsidence’ and erosion, as Hazra’s own 2002 study admitted, wasn’t it a bit misleading to blame rising sea levels?

    It might be misleading to blame the entire rise on rising sea levels, but how does he explain the other 1mm? That’s still a third of the rise.

    All very predictable.

  3. Scouse Billy — on 2nd April, 2010 at 12:40 pm  

    Haha pickled English more like – “Island submerges” lol.

    How about “is submerged”?

    Or better still “sinks”?

    You alarmists are so deluded and you want to blame 1mm sea rise on humanity! Why don’t you just go and self-flagelate. There’s a good little scientifically illiterate gullible fool.

  4. Golam Murtaza — on 2nd April, 2010 at 12:47 pm  

    @ Scouse Billy. You can’t spell either.

  5. Katy Newton — on 2nd April, 2010 at 12:49 pm  

    I get so confused by climate change. I had always thought that the debate was not whether the climate was changing, but whether it was man-made or not. It has always seemed to me that regardless of whether it actually is or not it can’t hurt to look for sources of clean, renewable energy and be frugal with what we’ve got. I don’t get annoyed with climate sceptics for being sceptical, which I think is a reasonable position to take (although I should emphasise that I simply do not understand the science well enough to judge the strength of the evidence for myself). However, I do sort of wonder why anyone would mind being sensible and frugal and economical. If climate change is natural and not man-made, wouldn’t it still be nice to have renewable energy and use up less resources?

  6. Sunny — on 2nd April, 2010 at 1:14 pm  

    If climate change is natural and not man-made, wouldn’t it still be nice to have renewable energy and use up less resources?

    I don’t think logic applies anymore to climate change deniers. Most of the ones trolling blogs, like the two above, simply believe CC isn’t taking place.

    You alarmists are so deluded and you want to blame 1mm sea rise on humanity!

    You’re talking about the wrong island. Have a look at the names again. Sheesh.

  7. Scouse Billy — on 2nd April, 2010 at 2:43 pm  

    “I don’t think logoc applies to climate change deniers”

    Really? Prof. Richard Lindzen isn’t logical?

    Grow up and get a science education – I mean real science not that of out of their depth geographers.

    Sheeeeeesh !!!!!

  8. Sunny — on 2nd April, 2010 at 3:39 pm  

    Really? Prof. Richard Lindzen isn’t logical?

    hahahahhahahaha!!!

    As that guy from The Wire would say: Sheeeeeeeeeeeeiiiit.

  9. damon — on 2nd April, 2010 at 3:54 pm  

    Has the sea level risen around the British Isles?
    I hadn’t noticed myself, or heard anything about it doing so.

  10. Joergen Munk — on 2nd April, 2010 at 4:43 pm  

    500 hundred years ago a poor agrarian society saw big areas of there land submerged after some big storms that punctuated the costal dunes. Some great inland lakes where created: the Ijsselmeer and the Harleemermeer.
    But the people fought back and with ingenuity and persistence reclaimed what was lost.

  11. Ali — on 2nd April, 2010 at 5:07 pm  

    Well I guess this is one way of sorting out a land dispute between two neighbours.

  12. Tom Johnson — on 2nd April, 2010 at 5:36 pm  

    Katy Newton@5

    What a great post Katy. I think that you speak for a lot of us, although I must say that I’m suspicious of the scientific consensus too many vested interests.

  13. KJB — on 2nd April, 2010 at 8:50 pm  

    Oh, Katy – you’re a sane and normal human being! Ergo, this post isn’t really directed at you. It’s directed at the likes of ‘Tom Johnson’ above, who like to believe that there’s a big, shadowy cabal of scientists who want to take away your freedom to DRIVE BIG CARS and GET RICH OFF OIL because, er…

    Well, I don’t know. I don’t think the delusionally paranoid need a reason, though – they’re not dealing in reason or logic.

    Sunny – you are asking people who think that ‘weather’ = ‘climate’ and who are known for being a bunch of selfish, racist bastards (see Old Holborn above) to contextualise this event.

    Good luck – and welcome back! :-D

  14. Sunny — on 2nd April, 2010 at 10:15 pm  

    thank you, it’s good to be back!

    and yes, good point. Don’t think they’re dealing with reason either.

  15. Trofim — on 3rd April, 2010 at 10:47 am  

    I can’t help but think that the Bangladeshis have an agenda. They might want to export some of their population elsewhere – not sure where to, nudge nudge, wink wink, seeing as they are playing the “Bangladesh is full up” card. When, by some oversight, you triple your population in 50 years without tripling the size of your country, the ever convenient “It’s all the west’s (white man’s) fault” gambit is always useful for transferring responsibility.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/04/bangladesh-climate-refugees

  16. Tom Johnson — on 3rd April, 2010 at 8:01 pm  

    KJB@13

    What a nasty individual you are. I’d hazard a guess that you know absolutely zero about the causes of Earth’s temperature fluctuations in fact I’d bet you don’t even have an A level in a science discipline.

    So instead of posting missives disparaging me to other posters I suggest you bone up on the subject instead of following, sheep like, the Guardian/Independent scientifically illiterate view which seems to believe that its all the fault of America.

    And you accuse me of conspiracy theories!

  17. Golam Murtaza — on 3rd April, 2010 at 8:40 pm  

    @ Trofim. If a minimum of thirty million Bangladeshis get displaced by rising sea levels it’s most likely to be India’s problem rather than any other country. Why do you think the Indians are currently building a 4,000 kilometre border barrier? India has enough on its plate already. Of course, no one else would accept such a large number of desperate, destitute people. And the Bangladesh Government can barely administer its existing population.

  18. Trofim — on 3rd April, 2010 at 10:36 pm  

    @17
    India building a 4,000 kilometre border? Are they really that worried?

    What staggers me is the last paragraph in that article:
    “Bangladesh, which is expecting its 165m population to increase by nearly 100m in the next 60 years, is the most vulnerable large country, with 60% of its land less than 5m above sea level”.
    In an emergency, which it surely is, wouldn’t they be taking urgent measures to promote population control? It all sounds extraordinarily laissez faire to me, given the context.

  19. KJB — on 3rd April, 2010 at 11:30 pm  

    KJB@13

    What a nasty individual you are.

    Why, thank you.

    I’d hazard a guess that you know absolutely zero about the causes of Earth’s temperature fluctuations in fact I’d bet you don’t even have an A level in a science discipline.

    Ehhhhh – WRONG. I have an A level AND an AS level in TWO science disciplines. I will not, however, be hawking myself as some kind of rebellious, individual-minded ‘sceptic’ who knows all about ‘the vested interests’ in science and understands the subject better than those actually trained and researching in it. Unless you’d like to elaborate – you seem to know about this.

    I suggest you bone up on the subject instead of following, sheep like, the Guardian/Independent scientifically illiterate view which seems to believe that its all the fault of America.

    I suggest you become literate, full stop, because

    a) the Guardian and Independent don’t believe ‘its [sic] all the fault of America’ and neither do I. Europe’s certainly guilty of this too, and not addressing the problem in any meaningful fashion so far. Perchance – you’re not American, are you?
    b) the vast majority of climate scientists – that’s right, NOT JUST the Graun/Indy! – believe that it’s happening and that we need to address it.

    See, the difference between you and I is that I too don’t know everything about it – but that doesn’t grossly offend me and lead me to develop a gigantic persecution complex where I accuse people who believe in what the experts in the field say of being ‘sheep like’ while myself bleating about scientific ‘vested interests’ of which no proof has ever, to this day, been presented.

  20. Tom Johnson — on 4th April, 2010 at 12:27 am  

    As I said you’re a nasty piece of work.

    Pathetic, rather than address me and my post you addressed another poster about me and my post.

    You people always believe it’s the fault of America and if you can find a way to shoe horn Israel into the mix you will.

    China commissions one coal fired power station every week yet not a word in your missive about that. India Brazil massive carbon emitters and both very reluctant to take responsibility for their emissions yet not a word about that.

    And as for your over the top nonsense about my so called ‘bleating about scientific “vested interests”‘ There are plenty of scientists who doubt the drama of man having a critical influence on climate change.

    In future don’t use a decent, polite exchange between two posters to interject your bile. You’re not smart of clever just puerile, now —- off!

  21. KJB — on 4th April, 2010 at 12:40 am  

    You people

    Who is this ‘you people’? Last time I checked – and at present – there’s only one of me.

    You people always believe it’s the fault of America and if you can find a way to shoe horn Israel into the mix you will.

    Riiight. You might want to book that English literacy course soon, love.

    China commissions one coal fired power station every week yet not a word in your missive about that. India Brazil massive carbon emitters and both very reluctant to take responsibility for their emissions yet not a word about that.

    You don’t happen to visit Harry’s Place, do you? This sounds suspiciously like the will-you-condemnathon so beloved of their ilk. Judging by your erroneous involvement of Israel, computer says yeah.

    There are plenty of scientists who doubt the drama of man having a critical influence on climate change.

    Let’s have some names, then.

    In future don’t use a decent, polite exchange between two posters to interject your bile.

    Honey, you responding to Katy is hardly an ‘exchange,’ no matter how badly you might want it to be.

    You’re not smart of clever

    … but hey, at least I can read!

  22. Tom Johnson — on 4th April, 2010 at 8:00 am  

    KJB@21

    Once again you’re trying to be smart and clever.

    I thought I told you to —- off.

  23. Golam Murtaza — on 4th April, 2010 at 8:42 am  

    @ Trofim, the problem is they HAVE implemented a birth control programme over the last couple of decades and, believe it or not, it is regarded as a success. Why the problem then? It’s because this ‘success’ just isn’t enough. It has significantly slowed population growth but not halted or reversed it.

    As for “laissez faire”, well I’m afraid that term understates the level of callousness and incompetence of successive Bangladeshi governments. Many senior politicians there couldn’t give a damn. They have their documents sorted to allow them to disappear off to America or somewhere else safe at a moment’s notice. They educate their children abroad, go to Singapore for their medical treatment e.t.c. They only need to stick around in Bangladesh long enough to loot whatever wealth remains.

    Yes, it is true about the border barrier, though I would be over simplifying if I said it was purely about India’s concerns over climate change refugees. Millions of landless Bangladeshis have been crossing the border into India for a very long time anyway, with explosive consequences for the indigenous inhabitants of the north east Indian states.

    I’m just glad that thanks to an accident of birth I don’t live there.

  24. Trofim — on 4th April, 2010 at 10:31 am  

    Golam Murtaza @23: Thank you very much for your reasoned and helpful reply. I have a deep conviction, for all sorts of reasons that smaller human populations are win-win populations. It is difficult to think of an ecological problem which could not at least be alleviated or reduced by a smaller, or at least, stable human population. Smaller populations are beneficial not only for the biosphere, the planet but also for human quality of life. I find that belief absolutely axiomatic and obvious to anyone who has eyes to see and ears to hear. Yet, as a rule, if I even suggest this in the most tentative way, I am assailed on all sides with accusations of racism, neo-imperialism, colonialist attitudes etc. from the left, and from libertarians almost invariably, I will be accused of wanting to exterminate the human race. Curiously, this is where both left-leaning control freaks and out-and-out libertians seem to coincide. You can’t win. Bangladesh, to me, seems clear evidence of my thesis, irrespective of global warming.

  25. KJB — on 4th April, 2010 at 11:34 am  

    KJB@21

    Once again you’re trying to be smart and clever.

    I thought I told you to —- off.

    I don’t have to try – you might.

    And no, I will not ‘– off’ on this site, on which I am a regular and you are but a pathetic troll!

    Cheerio, don’t let the door hit you on your way out.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Pickled Politics © Copyright 2005 - 2010. All rights reserved. Terms and conditions.
With the help of PHP and Wordpress.