"Global Warming Swallows Island
Scientists examining satellite images have done a double-take at shots of northeast India - as an island that was previously called home by approximately 10,000 people has now completely vanished from sight. The perpetrator of this horrific crime? Actually, you and I..."

A very nice story, but here's a few "inconvenient truths" for Treehugger.com:

a) Lohachara island disappeared 22 years ago. Although it is true that, as the original article claims, this is "unprecedented", since it never disappeared previously.

b) The cause was not "Global Warming", but normal erosion:
"Atanu Raha, director of Sundarban Biosphere Reserve, said the islands were getting eroded by oceanic currents, not by rising sea levels.
“Erosion and accretion are natural phenomena. Across the world islands submerge and new ones emerge. This is natural,” Raha said."
http://www.telegraphindia.com/1061030/asp/frontpage/story_6933888.asp

Of course, when facts conflict with your ideology, they become superfluous.

Milton - you're obviously not much of a thinker. That's a hugg story. I hate to break it to you, but hugg stories are not meant to reflect "ideology" of any kind, and exaggerated oddities do sneak through. That story would never pass the editorial standards of TreeHugger.

Only the smallest people "twist facts" to reflect "ideology", and only the smaller still, attack without reading further.

- Ulloa Sam (been enjoying DHMO for 67 years)

"That story would never pass the editorial standards of TreeHugger."

Heh, Good one!

" ... and only the smaller still, attack without reading further."

Then, by all means, Sam, read further.

Check the origin of this nonsense: Geoffrey Lean, "envvironment editor" at The Independent. It only gets more ludicrous. Treehugger.com fell for it.

Milton, it's a good catch, and I think the TreeHugger editors should not have included it on the best of hugg - for that you do the right thing in bringing it to people's attention, but the way you phrase your catch implies that the editors and (by extension) the readers of this website are masking "facts" with "ideology" which, in my experience, has never been the case here.

This was a HUGG article, which could be about Elvis on Mars for all I care, it's not editorially controlled, simply a voted-on mechanism, like Digg. Indeed, however, it probably should not have made it past the editorial screens to appear on the 'best of', but my guess is they're just picking the most popular stories. Perhaps someone here can debunk?

Alarmist shlock only hurts real environmental progress - I will not disagree about that!