Republicans Are Quite Literally Destroying The Country, Planet

Dude, where’s my city?

An ominous warning from a new piece in Rolling Stone, entitled, “Goodbye, Miami,” by Jeff Goodell.

It’s just what it sounds like:

“By century’s end, rising sea levels will turn the nation’s urban fantasyland into an American Atlantis. But long before the city is completely underwater, chaos will begin.”

Chuck Watson, a disaster-impact analyst summed up the attitude in the state and across the country:

“I mentioned sea-level rise, and I was treated to a 15-minute lecture on Genesis by one of the commissioners. He said, ‘God destroyed the Earth with water the first time, and he promised he wouldn’t do it again. So all of you who are pushing fears about sea-level rise, go back and read the Bible.’”

Florida Governor Rick Scott whose Tea Party Republican views on climate change are certifiable, has been quoted as saying, “Government can’t control the weather.”

It’s a Sandbag of Tears economy.

In a companion piece, entitled, Rising Seas: A City-By-City Forecast paints a pretty grim portrait.

The climate change deniers of the GOP are destroying the country. Not rhetorically, not symbolically. Our coastal cities are being swallowed up by the ignorance of Biblical lunatics and their criminal negligence.

With record temps sweeping across the state of Alaska over the past week seeing temperatures climbing to as high as 98 degrees in Talkeetna, Alaska, you would think people would be more concerned and this would be a national scandal:

The weather feels like anywhere but Alaska to 18-year-old Jordan Rollison, who was sunbathing with three friends and several hundred others lolling at the beach of Anchorage’s Goose Lake.

“I love it, I love it,” Rollison said. “I’ve never seen a summer like this, ever.”

FIN~

(H/T Jordan Ashby)

This entry was posted in Environment, Religion, Republican Party, Science, Weather and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.
  • blackdaug

    There is a huge segment of the climate change denier crowd, that aren’t really deniers in that they think:
    Oh well, this just means it will get warmer in places that are now cold, what’s wrong with that?
    Massive changes to the biosphere when the permafrost melt, and inundation of the coastlines aside, there is another climate zone that will expand exponentially with a warming planet: Deserts
    The latitudinal belt that currently produces most of the food on the planet will not shift northward, it will just turn to desert
    When the glaciers of the Himalayas melt completely, and stop feeding the three rivers that provide most of the water for about 3-4 billion people. Those lands will become..deserts.
    We are not going turn into Waterworld. We are going to turn in to Dune.

    • http://phydeauxpseaks.blogspot.com Bob Rutledge

      “There is a huge segment of the climate change denier crowd…”

      And the rest of them are selfish old farts who think/know they’ll be dead before things get really bad and so don’t give a shit.

  • muselet

    ‘God destroyed the Earth with water the first time, and he promised he wouldn’t do it again. So all of you who are pushing fears about sea-level rise, go back and read the Bible.’

    Oh, good grief. Fine, let’s assume your theology is bullet-proof. There’s still a problem with your statement: it’s not your God who’s causing problems, it’s people. That changes the assessment more than a little, you fool.

    Even if you think you don’t care about climate change, consider the consequences.

    (By the way, Brink, “It’s a Sandbag of Tears economy.” is the most sadly funny line I’ve read in a very long time. Applause.)

    –alopecia

  • KABoink_after_wingnut_hacker

    There are two large corporate sectors who are taking global climate change very, very seriously.
    1. The insurance industry.
    2. The military industrial complex.

    • http://drangedinaz.wordpress.com/ IrishGrrrl

      Unfortunately neither one of them will help the little people….meaning 99% of us.

      • http://phydeauxpseaks.blogspot.com Bob Rutledge

        Because those two sectors are only concerned about the effect on their bottom line.

  • Adam Rubin

    Maybe it’s not a great idea to use a specific example of aberrant weather to argue for the existence of climate change.

    • http://drangedinaz.wordpress.com/ IrishGrrrl

      I hope I’m misunderstanding you but I don’t think I am. Are you saying Mr. Brink should have linked to ALL of the posts on this blog that point to aberrant weather? Were you expecting him to link to the thousands upon thousands of studies that have proven man-made climate change is happening and the consequences are going to be extremely bad for homo sapiens?

      It doesn’t matter how many examples we link to. You can’t fix stupid.

      • http://phydeauxpseaks.blogspot.com Bob Rutledge

        Not to mention that Florida and Alaska are two distinctly separate and explicit instances, so his statement falls apart from the get-go.

      • Adam Rubin

        Tell me how Mr. Brink’s argument is any different than this one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=-GvXX7PCkQ0

        I believe in global warming. I believe it’s being caused by humans. But there’s a reason scientists don’t generally point to specific incidents.

        • mrbrink

          There’s a pattern of extreme weather across the country. Floods, wildfires, drought, tornadoes, hurricanes that are swallowing up cities… what do you think climate change entails? I was citing two very distinct sectors of the country to demonstrate a sort of bookend of extremes.

          • Adam Rubin

            I see how that may have been the intent, but the way I read your argument, it goes something like:

            1) A new piece in Rolling Stones says that Florida (and specifically Miami) is going to be particularly hard hit.

            2) Florida’s GOP politicians are denying the very existence of man-made climate change.

            3) They’re obviously wrong because it’s been really hot in Alaska this week.

            I’m not trying to find fault with your post, just pointing out that the argument could have been made more compelling (maybe even just by referencing the pattern of extreme weather). If you can use specific climate events as evidence, so can they.