Slashdot Mirror
Facing Oblivion, Island Nation Makes Big Sacrifice
Damien1972 writes "Kiribati, a small nation consisting of 33 Pacific island atolls, is forecast to be among the first countries swamped by rising sea levels. Nevertheless, the country recently made an astounding commitment: it closed over 150,000 square miles of its territory to fishing, an activity that accounts for nearly half the government's tax revenue. What moved the tiny country to take this monumental action? President Anote Tong, says Kiribati is sending a message to the world: 'We need to make sacrifices to provide a future for our children and grandchildren.'"
so we wait until they drown and then fish?
I wish the people and governments of these island countries well and I certainly think they should try whatever they can to get attention for their plight, but the lesson learned in COP15 is that the major industrial powers of the world are not willing to make major changes in their greenhouse gas emissions. And basically the rest of the world can't do a damn thing to make them.
Quite enjoyed J. Maarten Troost's The Sex Lives of Cannibals which takes place on the island of Kiribati. A great beach book.
It's interesting to hear the government making a commitment like this. As the article has the president saying: "One million is 1+1+1 and so on. Every person and every action is important." Too often forgotten methinks. The cynic in me is losing out today; facing extinction of their islands, I can hope enough that they're sincere, and they others will listen.
Presumably it ensures that there will still be decent fish stocks in the area in decades to come.
Or, since no one can fish, they will move away from low lying Kiribat and there will be fewer people to be swamped by rising sea levels.
Daft.
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
They're gonna feel like fools when the doom and gloom prophesies don't pan out.
According to the South Pacific Regional Environment Program, two small uninhabited Kiribati islets, Tebua Tarawa and Abanuea, disappeared underwater in 1999.
And in other parts of the world:
-A tiny island claimed for years by India and Bangladesh in the Bay of Bengal has disappeared beneath the rising seas, scientists in India say.
-Over the last century, sea levels have risen about 20 centimetres (8 in);[17][18] further rises of the ocean could threaten the existence of Maldives, being the lowest country in the world, with a maximum natural ground level of only 2.3 metres (7 ft 7 in), with the average being only 1.5 metres (4 ft 11 in) above sea level.
Having RTFA, it looks like they are taking measures to protect the corals from fisherman with the hope that the gesture will generate awareness and sympathy (ie money) towards their plight. It also hints that by establishing a preserve, they hope to increase tourism to offset the financial loss.
If only we could get all the ostrich-minded lot like you to move there. Still, it'll be small consolation being able to say "I told you so" when it's going to affect the rest of us anyhow. In a more just reality, there'd be two planets, one that could be stewarded responsibly, and one that denialists could ruin.
For every problem, there is at least one solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.
Ahh, so what does that have to do with rising sea levels? If it's only about conserving their cash crop then it makes sense, but when you tie it into global warming it gets screwy. Also how does stopping all fishing in these areas really help it any better then limiting fishing? This article is poorly written at best, anyone care to shed some light on this from other sources?
Studies show that atols and coral islands maintain their height above sealevel. The coral grows upwards as sealevel rises.
Does this somehow help them? The article doesn't say.
How much of their fishing territory does this eliminate (article says 150,000 square miles, but doesn't mention the current total area)?
Basically, the article is poorly written, even mixing units - square miles, then square kilometers. Has all the appearance of a "puff piece."
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
The doom and gloom prophecies for fish-stock collapses, at least, are pretty much already halfway through panning out.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
as far as google maps is concerned the islands have already sank in to the pacific
Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
>>>They're gonna feel like fools when the doom and gloom prophesies don't pan out.
Not really. Even if 2100 arrives and nothing terrible has happened, they'll still benefit from a smaller population and abundant food supply. So it's a win-win solution.
In fact I think population control, like China's 1 baby per family, will eventually become necessary... especially after oil becomes scarce and skyrockets to $1000/barrel (~$30/gallon of gasoline). Simply put either WE will impose population limits, or nature will do it for us (via starvation in the cities).
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
The claim about the island by India/Bangladesh was discussed here on /. recently and was shown to be total bunk.
As of right now no island or territory had sunk due to rising sea levels.
Any islands that have disappeared in the last 100 years or so did so due to erosion - either natural and slow or, on occasion, due to storms and hurricanes.
As far as Kiribati goes, there is precisely 0 chance of them sinking due to rising sea levels. The real problem is the unregulated phosphate mining that essentially destroyed their island and, likely, undermined (pun intended) the natural strength of island formation. If it disappears beneath the sea - they can only blame themselves.
Good on them for closing their waters to fishing, though. Of course with ever-increasing world population that wants to eat (go figure) that just means some other place will be over-fished.
It's not a "prophesy," it's a measurement. (Unless you think that trend will suddenly reverse for some unexplained reason?)
And since tourists are more likely to want to go to places not drowned, they're also quite nicely snagging interested elements in the tourist entry to back them. It's actually quite ingenious and although it's unlikely to succeed to the point of saving their nation, it might well be the point at which eco-tourism becomes a significant movement. Or perhaps not - that's the danger of futurology, the future is too damn uncertain to make accurate predictions on what will happen.
The most important aspect of this, though, is the incredible gamble of present-day unreliable income in the hopes of securing a future stable income. Politicians are not noted for being up on long-term thinking, when short-term goals offer them rewards right then and there. This is actually quite remarkable, regardless of what happens, and I am greatly impressed.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Welcome to the cycles of nature.
New land is being formed as well, and new islands, even with rising sea levels.
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
Which is why Africa is doing so w... wait. What?
THL phish sticks
Getting the American marketers to stop getting the rapidly expanding middle class of China on the consumerism gravy train simply wont happen until something collapses.
The boom in China is dependant on an America willing and able to purchase their goods. The continuing erosion of the middle class in America means this boom for China may come to an end - In other words, you may get your 'collapse'...
The claim about the island by India/Bangladesh was discussed here on /. recently and was shown to be total bunk.
Well, if that was established in a discussion on Slashdot then I don't think there's anything more to be said on the matter. Talk about citation overkill! There's a monk out back with a ladder.
Someone who cared about islanders would suggest they actually solve their problems (in the event those problems actually happen) by building some small seawalls or other simple structures to deal with a modest rise in sea levels.
WTF... did you even bother to read the article? He's doing this to protect marine diversity and fish stocks, you know, kinda like how the US has national parks. It has absolutely nothing, whatsoever, to do with dealing with rising sea levels.
Seriously, its times like this, when a blatantly uninformed post gets modded up to +4, that I wonder why the hell I even bother with this place anymore...
Worse, by taking fish out of the water, you make the water level go down (see Archimedes' principle), counteracting rising sea levels.
A fishing ban will only make the sea rise faster.
Fish stocks haven't gone down, it's a global liberal conspiracy which has altered all historic records ... just like with global temperature records (everyone knows that not only is there no AGW, there is no global warming period).
Someone who cared about islanders would suggest they actually solve their problems (in the event those problems actually happen) by building some small seawalls or other simple structures to deal with a modest rise in sea levels. Whining and making ridiculous and destructive spectacles is useless and childish.
Limiting the areas the locals are allowed to fish to protect coral reefs is hardly a good example of government oppression. It's merely a publicity stunt to raise awareness of their plight which advertising their nation for international tourism.
Your saying that one of the poorest countries in the world would be able to exist below sea level on tiny flat islands without contaminating their fresh water supplies by building walls? Please provide more details about these magic walls and how high and thick you think they will need to be, what materials and how 100,000 fishermen could afford it?
Do you even know anything about Kiribati? The country is so small that in New England towns that size still use town meetings for most government decisions. He is closing the fishery to protect fish stocks and to make a point for the world at large. As for sea walls, those would do nothing against the salinization of groundwater on those islands. When your well draws sea water, you have to leave the island anyway, which is what is happening in those islands.
I'm guessing TFA is talking about fishing rights sold to other countries or companies.
not local fishermen.
because stopping all fishing in an area is far more effective?
It's harder to police quotas than an outright ban in certain areas.
They could have decided that over the next few decades their government is going to need more money so if they stop all fishing in large sections of their national waters they can increase their future income?
It makes perfect sense if you understand that when they speak of "our children and grandchildren", they're speaking as residents of Earth, not of Kiribati. They're taking a step toward conservation of the planet's biosphere (to the limited but measurable extent that they are able), and setting an example for others to follow, to help preserve it for future generations of humans, not just future generations of I-Kiribati.
http://alternatives.rzero.com/
"Any islands that have disappeared in the last 100 years or so did so due to erosion - either natural and slow or, on occasion, due to storms and hurricanes."
However, increasing the base ocean level greatly increases erosion. The height of waves is something like Gaussian distribution, and increasing the level greatly increases the number of high waves in the 'long tail'.
I don't understand why people automatically assume that scientists who spend DECADES studying a particular phenomenon are totally blind to the Captain Obvious answers and don't bother to check them out as part of their research. In your job, do you ignore the bleedingly obvious, to the point of gross incompetence? Why do you automatically assume the same of other people who know a HELL OF A LOT MORE about a subject than you do?
Yes, sea levels are rising, measured in many places with and without local tectonic activity. Yes, scientists have checked against such obvious things and have filtered any such "noise" from them out of their findings.
If you want to challenge the findings of scientific research, get your arse out of that chair and back into college, then get out there and DO the research to prove them wrong. Failing that, I'll take the word of people who know wtf they are talking about over some anonymous coward on the intarwebs.
-SS "Teach the ignorant, care for the dumb, and punish the stupid."
Do you even know anything about Kiribati?
Of course not. Is that a rhetorical question? Do the people of Kiribati know about me? Are they interested in my problems?
They kind of have to, because your activities, and mine, are putting the very existence of their country into doubt.
And that is why they are speaking out.
He is closing the fishery to protect fish stocks and to make a point for the world at large.
Protecting people from eating and making a spectacle. Bravo.
Protecting fisheries so they don't get annihilated is the most important task for any Polynesian nation.
As for sea walls, those would do nothing against the salinization of groundwater on those islands. When your well draws sea water, you have to leave the island anyway, which is what is happening in those islands.
I admit to not knowing about island fresh water supplies. I'm not sure I believe a small rise in sea levels would automatically change ground water to salt water. Perhaps there is something constructive to be done about it. But I'm pretty sure whining and prohibiting fishing isn't a remedy.
Well, then, do a Google Image Search on Kiribati. And Tuvalu. You'll find pictures of beaches lined with dead palm trees. Those trees are dead because sea level rise raised the average salinity of the ground water they're rooted in. This is what they are "whining" about: our energy consumption is raising sea levels and making their islands uninhabitable.
This reminds me of a study I read about a year ago, The author pointed out that most reefs were dying, obviously because of global warming. The only ones that are still healthy are the ones where the large predators (sharks, groupers, etc) are still present to control the smaller fish that eat the coral. But the conclusion was that removing the large predators wasn't the problem, it is obviously global warming. Obvious to that scientist anyway.
Where do you think all the fish you eat is coming from?
Ocean are over-exploited, people are talking to register Tuna to the list of endangered species (it is that serious). Quotas and catch management are barely working...
What you need is an area where fish can reproduce and grow. For migratory species like Tuna you need a big area, and because of el nino anyhow, the big area for fishing is the west Pacific, not the central Pacific where this area is.
Kiribati just did that.
Franck Martin
Avonsys
>>>it becomes economically viable to use non-fossile sources for all our hydrocarbon needs.
Like what? What could you possibly replace oil in the Trucks and Trains that move food/goods across the continent, and for less than $30/gallon? (And before you say hydrogen - virtually all of it comes from reformed oil, which will of course be scarce.)
.
>>>Oh, and for nature to impose population limits for us she better start working now, because we're nowhere short of stopping technological advancements allowing us to be more than ever before, in increasingly smaller spaces.
Or not. You can't know that. We were supposed to have flying highways/cars by now, and yet they never happened. And unlimited energy that was free - that never happened either. As for Nature - it only took 2 years for it to decimate Europe to 1/3rd its previous population during the Black Plague. (The continent had been over-populated and barely surviving.)
.
>>>By year 3000, we'll be a hundred billion people
Asimov described that future in Caves of Steel. He also described the hellish existence (people lived in dorms), and how they were experiencing an energy crisis because the earth was running out of . Just as stars eventually run out of fuel (and collapse) so too do planets.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
"And the research showed similar trends in the Republic of Kiribati, where the three main urbanised islands also “grew” – Betio by 30 percent (36ha), Bairiki by 16.3 percent (5.8ha) and Nanikai by 12.5 percent (0.8ha).
Webb, an expert on coastal processes, told the New Scientist the trend was explained by the fact the islands mostly comprised coral debris eroded from encircling reefs and pushed up onto the islands by winds and waves.
The process was continuous, because the corals were alive, he said."
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/06/02/tuvalu-and-many-other-south-pacific-islands-are-not-sinking-claims-they-are-due-to-global-warming-driven-sea-level-rise-are-opportunistic/
Worries about the small islands are alarmist propaganda.
See also
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/03/19/despite-popular-opinion-and-calls-to-action-the-maldives-is-not-being-overrun-by-sea-level-rise/
"Presumably it ensures that there will still be decent fish stocks in the area in decades to come."
That would make sense.
The citizens of Kiribati will always have the fishing grounds--flooding does not equate to total loss of rights and ownership--and as such, this move will simply put the value of those fishing-grounds in a sort of "Trust Fund" for future generations. They will need it--the debt from purchasing a new COUNTRY will not go away anytime soon.
I think it is a great thing this country is doing--thinking about the welfare of future humans. We all need to do that a little more often then we do. Otherwise, I think we humans are pretty well fucked. There are far too many people willing to fuck over the future for a few bucks in the present.
"Or, since no one can fish, they will move away from low lying Kiribati and there will be fewer people to be swamped by rising sea levels.
Daft."
Underwater is pretty low, yes. Unless you're a fish. That is the idea. A Fish "Savings & Loan", if you will. Everyone is leaving. If they lose the rights to the fishing grounds, they lose EVERYTHING. By maintaining the fishery, they maintain a link to their past, as well as a link to something real--fish. The FISH will be their claim to an ancestral land as well as a link to past cultural pastimes--fishing--regardless of where the existing population ends up.
In essence, the children of Old Kiribati will go home to fish, and honor those ancestors that honored them with a future.
Beautiful.
Having RTFA, it looks like they are taking measures to protect the corals from fisherman with the hope that the gesture will generate awareness and sympathy (ie money) towards their plight. It also hints that by establishing a preserve, they hope to increase tourism to offset the financial loss.
They want to be the Palestinians of the Pacific? That makes more sense than anything else in the article, I suppose.
They just embarked on a gesture that will involve severe sacrifice on their part, and sent their leader to present a calm and mature message detailing their plight, in a way that is meant to arouse admiration and (one hopes) sympathy, instead of horror and revulsion. The Kiribatian approach is as un-Palestinian as a country could possibly be.
The story said they would be one of the first, BUT when will that be? Let's see, some ice at the pole and HUGE oceans around the world. It will slowly rise and they will be under water in what...250 years from now?
jsut athnoer menagiensls ltitle psrhae for you to dcoede. Why do we wtsae our tmie dnoig tihs?
>>>Like what?
I'm not a fuel engineer so i'm not sure on the specifics, but there are methods for deriving hydrocarbon equivalents or good enough substitutes from organisms that are only recently dead, biofuels you know, I also have a distinct memory of hearing about some technique to turn CO2 into fuel, that of course is probably something we'll only bother with when the coal run out in a few hundred years.
>>> We were supposed to have flying highways
We were also supposed to face global famine/population caps in the 20th century due to the old cliche of overpopulation, along came the green revolution and food suddenly could be made availible in abundance.
>>>Asimov described that future
And the Turner Diaries have the neo-nazis take over the US and exterminate all black people(according to wiki atleast). Just because a book paints a picture of doom and gloom doesn't mean reality will follow.
Energy wise we have an extreme abundance, it's just that the necessary technologies for utilization of it is lacking, geothermal, solar or fission, and if you are allowed to belive in fusion could all single handendly supply the entire earth with all our energy needs if refined and developed on a large scale, that's _all_ forms of energy, not just our electricity needs, and if we ever find ourself in need of ludicrous energy levels we can presumable paint the moon in solar panels or anchor huge arrays of them in the lagrange spots. Or start building that bloody dyson sphere if we find a need to support more than a few trillion people.
In recent history, no negative prediction fortelling catastrophic economical, societal or otherwise a really really bad turn of events have turned out to be true. I don't see why i should assume any future prediction along those lines should have any more luck, more likely we're getting better at adaptation and as such being more capable of mitigating he impact of whatever that's threatening to ruin our day. And no, the recent economic downturn does not qualify a catastrophic events, it was bad and ugly, but far from a catastrophe.
O rly?
Aside from that, you really believe that academia is never predisposed to a particular agenda or ideology?
THL phish sticks
"every action is important"
Increased demand from the aquifers-the islanders just using more fresh water that can be replenished from rainfall- would do the exact same thing, allow the saline water in. Happening all over the planet now, like in south Florida..and we do NOT have any major sea level rises anyplace. You are talking single digit millimeters at the most, an insignificant amount.
I have seen quite a bit of wild speculation here as to the motives of the I-Kiribati, and their President as concerns this initiative. I have had the opportunity to visit Kiribati, to install a SolarNetOne solar powered internet infrastructure package, as part of a project with the Internet Society http://www.isoc.org You might remember the SolarNetOne: http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/07/02/1330252 Having been to Kiribati and worked with the I-Kiribati, I would like to offer my perspective on this topic, as well as a little history.
Kiribati has been inhabited for several thousand years or so by people who have managed to not overfish their waters, not cut down all the trees, not drive the local wildlife to extinction, and not overpopulate their lands. They KNOW how to live in harmony with one another and with their environment. They have a complex system of protecting their own genetic stock that traditionally would not allow a young couple from the same island to mate. They have no homeless, hungry people, or crime. In addition, they are one of the most sincere, honest, and friendly peoples that I have had the opportunity to be around.
Most of the water for drinking and cleaning there is not groundwater. Coral atolls are essentially ancient coral reefs that have grown upon the rims of slightly more ancient volcanic caldera. Underneath a few meters of soil, which is mostly composed of a fine grit of coral dust, is the reef, or the fossil of the reef. In low areas of the ancient fossilized bedrock of reef, fresh water lenses develop. These are areas where fresh water will pool under the soil, and is isolated from the ocean. There is no aquifer to draw from. The fresh water lenses are a source for agriculture, to be sure, but not the main source of drinking and bathing water. That water is rainwater collected in cisterns or barrels for the most part. One of the main impacts upon them will be sea level rise, and no, it will not erode the ancient bedrock of fossilized coral reef away, but it is already taking a toll on the shoreline: http://gnuveau.net/kir/pict0614.jpg
Notice the old growth palms that have had their roots undercut. Here is the reef bedrock near the shore:
http://gnuveau.net/kir/pict0589.jpg
http://gnuveau.net/kir/pict0591.jpg
http://gnuveau.net/kir/pict0592.jpg
http://gnuveau.net/kir/pict0584.jpg
Notice in the last image there(584), how small the ankleslapper wave is breaking on shore, as opposed to the next to last image(592), where a 15 foot barrel is peeling 1/2 mile offshore. This is because the wave comes up on the shallow outer reef, which rises from VERY deep water, much like on the north shore of Oahu. This forces the wave to expend all its energy on the outer reef, with very little of that energy making it to shore, as one days photos above show. The following image is from the next day, when the wavers were a bit smaller... only 12' or so on the outer reef, and makes the point very well:
http://gnuveau.net/kir/pict0611.jpg
Kiribati is not in the path of Tropical cyclones to cause erosion, being in the region where many of the storms start their lives, like the tropical wave region over and off the east coast of Africa which leads to the Atlantic hurricanes.Needless to say, I do not buy the argument that normal erosion will cause this. Erosion with higher sea levels, which makes the outer reef deeper and allows more wave energy to reach the beach, however, will.
Government is essentially enacted for the most part in what is called Manaeba, or village council, which includes not only an open meeting to discuss events, topics of the day, and courses of action, but also includes a "coverd dish buffet" with each family preparing part of the feast, singing, dancing, and closes with time for socialization. Ideas therefrom are passed up to island council members, and on to members of Parliment, which meets on the capital island of Tarawa. There is no "slick politics" going on in Kiribati, unlike many more developed but imh
People totally bind to Captain Obvious answers, ignoring the bleeding obvious to the point of gross incompetence, is sadly not uncommon in many lines of work. In particular it appears desirable in the media, essential in politics and, interestingly perhaps, there appears to be a causal relationship with middle management.
mongabay.com: Have Kiribati's reefs experienced coral bleaching?
President Anote Tong: I have certainly seen bleaching. Whether it is the product of climate change, I do not know.
A straightforward, honest answer from a politician?
Impressive!
Sounds like this man has a clue, and integrity. He's prepared to do what needs to be done, even if it's hard.
Sadly, that makes him a very dangerous man in the minds of "some countries".
Visit CryptoGnome in his home.
...The Kirabati can become the "Jews of the Sea." Hmm... that doesn't sound so appealing after all.
It really depends whether that will turn out to be atollers, drifters, smokers or...Ichthyus sapiens.
One that hath name thou can not otter
That is such an utter straw man. First of all, these islanders are not dealing with "theiir own" problems. These problems are being caused by you and me. If I dumped garbage on your backyard and said "your yard, your problem", you would be right to see it very differently.
From the title (not having RTFA nor RTFS), I pictured this island nation makes virgin sacrifices to the volcano god and all Kitibatian (Kiribatan? Kiribatinese? Kiribatish?) slashdotters have scattered and gone underground.
It's written "i-kiribati" and pronounced ee-keereebas, thats the adjective for that country. Also, don't knock the pacific island countries! Although poor and tiny, some countries have higher phd/capita ratios than the US (although it's mostly in humanities disciplines).
It's because science says one thing one day, and weeks later says the opposite. Also, scientists argue among themselves about what the conclusion should be.
I can't find the original article off hand, but approximately 33 percent of research turns out to be wrong, according to one study. This article doesn't put a number on it, but estimates a lot higher.
Bottom line, journalism makes science look like a bunch of bumbling clowns because it can't summarize research correctly, and the scientists sometimes do a bad enough job themselves that they don't need help bungling the conclusion. I have this argument all the time with people who don't understand how the scientific method works, and the difference between internet news and peer-reviewed journals.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118972683557627104.html
(if it's blocked put the URL in google and click from there).
Finally, regarding gp post, you seem overly sensitive. I didn't read that as a "here's the obvious, maybe that explains it?" post. But maybe I give people more credit than they deserve.
Does that help you understand?
Do you remember the story about peer review being highly sensitive to poor refereeing? It was only a few days ago, on this very website. Maybe this is one of those great experiments with an unsupported conclusion and will get peer-reviewed into the bin?
http://science.slashdot.org/story/10/09/17/1416201/Peer-Review-Highly-Sensitive-To-Poor-Refereeing
"A new study described at Physicsworld.com claims that a small percentage of shoddy or self-interested referees can have a drastic effect on published article quality. The research shows that article quality can drop as much as one standard deviation when just 10% of referees do not behave 'correctly.' At high levels of self-serving or random behavior, 'the peer-review system will not perform much better than by accepting papers by throwing (an unbiased) coin.' The model also includes calculations for 'friendship networks' (nepotism) between authors and reviewers. The original paper, by a pair of complex systems researchers, is available at arXiv.org. No word on when we can expect it to be peer reviewed."
Over the past two years, President Tong has brought together 16 Pacific Ocean nations to develop the initiative, which seeks to maintain ocean health by improving management of fisheries, protecting and conserving biodiversity, furthering scientific understanding of the marine ecosystem, and reducing the negative impacts of human activities.
Whether you agree that closing this fishing area is good for the planet or not it looks like they are doing this because they want to do their part in keeping earth healthy and they consider this to be it, not to generate awareness or bring in tourists.
Thank you for understanding. The Pacific nations who stand most to lose from global climate change are making a symbolic gesture: They're saying, in effect, "Even though we have less than the rest of the world, we at least are willing to take action to protect the world's ecosystems."
Implicit in this action is the question, "So what have you done for the planet lately?"
Remember back in Copenhagen, it was neighbouring Tuvalu who exposed just how much of a farce the gathering was by leading a walk-out on the second day. They deliberately timed it early in the conference so that the negotiations among the largest nations didn't steal their thunder. With a bit of principle and a canny sense of timing, they controlled an entire news cycle.
Pacific nations are becoming increasingly adept at the politics of public opinion. They know they have no clout whatsoever on the world stage, and very little economic or geopolitical leverage, so the only alternative left to them is the noble gesture.
(Cute anecdote - The globe in the foyer of the main meeting venue in Copenhagen featured a huge hanging globe. The creator of the globe had, however, neglected to draw in all of the tiny Pacific islands. The Prime Minister of Tuvalu, seeing this, asked UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon, "So I take it this is a representation of the UN's climate action plan?")
Crumb's Corollary: Never bring a knife to a bun fight.
adding insult to injury, pulling fish (and nets) out of the water brings water with them. this water evaporates helping form additional clouds that can reflect light from the sun and also help cool the earth. OH, the humanity!!!
Slowly waving my hand - "This is not the sig you are looking for."
The summary talked about islands threatened by rising sea levels.
So, I take it you're defending your decision to attack the government of this island without actually reading the fucking article? I assume you also prefer to just skim the headlines in a newspaper, rather than actually reading the stories?
Christ, and we wonder why the US electorate is so god damned uninformed and gullible...
"Any islands that have disappeared in the last 100 years or so did so due to erosion"
Rising sea levels cause erosion, just ask the seaside residents on the east coast of the UK.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
It's because science says one thing one day, and weeks later says the opposite. Also, scientists argue among themselves about what the conclusion should be.
Despite your hyperbole, the fact remains that science is never static. No one EVER gets it right on their first try. Many don't get it right on their 20th try. That's the WHOLE POINT of the scientific method and the research process. Science isn't about proving anything; proofs are exclusive only to mathematics and can be dubious even then. Instead, science is about DISproving things. Like in a crucible, irrelevancies, false observations, improper procedures, incorrect conclusions, etc are burned away, usually a bit at a time, to get a PURER product (note not a PURE product, simply a PURER product) that enhances our knowledge and understanding of the world. Ongoing falsification is at the core of the scientific method.
As such, sure, science says one thing one day, then some time later, IMPROVES upon that, either refining it via specificity, OR refutation, even. Unlike what most people understand about science, refutation is a GOOD thing -- it demonstrates that the scientific method is WORKING. No true scientist wants to cling to the wrong answers!
Sure, scientists argue about a lot of things; it is in their nature. However, just because they argue doesn't mean they ignore each others' established and (thus far) unfalsified research. Two scientists could argue vehemently all day long over the specificity of a nearly insignificant point in a pair of competing research studies which otherwise support each other. However, when you ask them about the general consensus of their respective research, they will fully admit to being in near total agreement.
Bottom line, journalism makes science look like a bunch of bumbling clowns because it can't summarize research correctly, and the scientists sometimes do a bad enough job themselves that they don't need help bungling the conclusion. I have this argument all the time with people who don't understand how the scientific method works, and the difference between internet news and peer-reviewed journals.
That's why I pretty much ignore what journalists and pundits say; I go STRAIGHT to the science/research itself. Hell, I still consider myself a skeptic of what scientists say about a lot of things, but if I don't have the knowledge/training and haven't done the research, I will give a scientist who does/has the benefit of a doubt until such time as I do have better information from a more reliable source, or from my own research into the subject.
As such, I (and others) would appreciate direct links to papers, rather than regurgitation of "talking points"-style articles in popular rags, which often cherry-pick and distort salient bits to suit the whims of the article author/editor/publisher. Hence:
Here is Dr. Ioannidis's paper referenced by your linked article.
Just like in the Thurner and Hanel paper recently published, I think that Dr. Ioannidis makes valid and important points in his observations. However, again, they are hypothetical in nature. He doesn't actually review or provide specific evidence for statistical analysis to support his contention that "Most Published Research Findings Are False". Again, that doesn't invalidate his contentions (at least directly), but it also does not indict any specific body of research in any meaningful way. In simpler words, you can't use that as a litmus to automatically disregard any particular research paper "just because Dr. Ioannidis said that 'Most Published Research Findings Are False', thus this paper's findings are false". That's being grossly disingenuous and not a little intellectually dishonest.
Finally, regarding gp post, you seem overly sensitive. I didn't read that as a "here's the obvious, maybe that explains it?" post. But maybe I give people more credit than they
-SS "Teach the ignorant, care for the dumb, and punish the stupid."
Kiribati has two international airports - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_airports_in_Kiribati
Yeah, because getting tourists to an isolated island does not generate any CO2, so it's great way to fight global warming...
Whatever everyone knows that global warming will create ultra slow tsunamis and that the islands aren't growing that's just the water getting pulled back before the big wave.
By the Kelvin statement of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, we can expect that the feces will have a smaller mass than the fish.
even the present is not rosy, and it's only going to get worse, especially when oil wells start drying up and prices soar to $1000/barrel during the 2020s.
If slashdot and your account is still present when the 2020s start, i'll make sure to give you an annual reminder of this prediction until we're in the 2030s.