Slashdot Mirror


Arkansas Has a Growing Population of "Climate Change Refugees"

HughPickens.com writes: Located between Hawaii and Australia, the Marshall Islands are made up of 29 atolls and five islands with a population of about 70,000, all of whom live about six feet above sea level. Now Story Hinkley writes in the Christian Science Monitor that another 10,000 Marshallese have moved to Springdale, Arkansas because of climate change. Because this Pacific island nation is so small, the Marshallese population in Arkansas attribute their Springdale settlement to one man, John Moody, who moved to the US in 1979 after the first wave of flooding. Moody's family eventually moved to Springdale to live with him and work for Tyson and other poultry companies based in Arkansas, eventually causing a steady flow of extended friends and family migrating to Springdale. "Probably in 10 to 20 years from now, we're all going to move," says Roselinta Keimbar adding that she likes Arkansas because it is far away from the ocean, meaning it is safe.

For more than three decades, Marshallese have moved in the thousands to the landlocked Ozark Mountains for better education, jobs and health care, thanks to an agreement that lets them live and work in the US.. This historical connection makes it an obvious destination for those facing a new threat: global warming. Marshallese Foreign Minister Tony de Brum says even a small rise in global temperatures would spell the demise of his country. While many world leaders in Paris want to curb emissions enough to cap Earth's warming at 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit (2 degrees Celsius), de Brum is pushing for a target that's 25 percent lower. "The thought of evacuation is repulsive to us," says de Brum. "We think that the more reasonable thing to do is to seek to end this madness, this climate madness, where people think that smaller, vulnerable countries are expendable and therefore they can continue to do business as usual." Meanwhile residents jokingly call their new home "Springdale Atoll," and there's even a Marshallese consulate in Springdale, the only one on the mainland US. "Its not our fault that the tide is getting higher," says Carlon Zedkaia,. "Just somebody else in this world that wants to get rich."

276 comments

  1. Education... by KGIII · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Now, I've traveled pretty extensively - and have enjoyed my time in Arkansas quite a bunch. But... And you knew there must be a but... I can't really imagine the hardship if you're moving to the Ozarks for a "better education." This might seem like a slam against the Ozarks and, indeed, it might be but the reality is that they're not stupid - it's that I just don't think of the Ozarks when I think of where to send people for a "better education."

    Better than what? I was under the impression that we'd put schools and infrastructure in place post WWII. The climate part I get... But, of all the places to seek in the US for "better education" that seems a bit of a stretch. I'm thinking it was cheap living, ready jobs at Tyson, family, and a pre-existing culture base that was similar due to their historical roots. Hmm... I suspect "education" makes a better sound bite but damned if I'm gonna read the article - I'm no heretic.

    --
    "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    1. Re:Education... by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      To me the "wow" moment was rather the "better healthcare" bit.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    2. Re:Education... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I would rather send my kid to school in the poorest Ozark school than almost any inner-city shithole school in America.

    3. Re:Education... by NostalgiaForInfinity · · Score: 4, Informative

      Better than what? I was under the impression that we'd put schools and infrastructure in place post WWII.

      Per capita GDP in the Marshall Islands is $2900, compared to Arkansas's $31000. Arkansas, while near the bottom among US states, is better off even compared to EU members like the Czech Republic, Slovenia, Slovakia, Estonia, Portugal, Greece, Hungary, Latvia, and Croatia.

      No matter how much "schools and infrastructure" we put in place, a pacific atoll simply doesn't have much to support a thriving economy: it is poorly located for physical or data traffic, has few natural resources, and has always been at high risk of natural disasters. The reason much of Micronesia and Polynesia were settled so late in human migration (many places just a few thousand years ago) is because these islands really are not good places to live and people only move there if they don't have a choice.

    4. Re:Education... by KGIII · · Score: 1

      That too... I think the entire article is probably a stretch for reasons other than they had a desire to not live on an isolated island without the benefits of modernity (which probably includes safety) and moved to where they had familiar people and jobs. It is tempting to read the article but I have my pride. If it's got pictures then I'd see fit to view those infographics but I'm guessing it probably doesn't so I'll skip giving them the traffic. Ah well...

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    5. Re:Education... by KGIII · · Score: 1

      I'd have expected them to go to Australia or maybe somewhere in Southern Europe or even parts of Eurasia. The Ozarks? It just strikes me as an odd choice - I've been to the Ozarks but I've never been to the Marshall Islands. I've read a bit about them and seen a few documentaries but I've never felt the urge to go.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    6. Re:Education... by bev_tech_rob · · Score: 1

      How recently did you travel to Arkansas? From what your comments say, not recently. Northwest Arkansas is the fastest growing part of the state with a very high quality education system by comparison to the rest of the state. They can't build schools fast enough up there to keep up with the growing population. Healthcare systems are a lot better up there as well. A lot of folks I know here in the Fort Smith area that need healthcare will commute up I-49 to NWA to get their healthcare there instead of putting up with the crappy system down here in the Fort.

      --
      You're messin' with my Zen Thing, man.....
    7. Re:Education... by KGIII · · Score: 1

      Three or four years ago and probably again within the next couple of months as I'm on the road and down in DC already. Anyhow, no - I'd expect to see them in Australia or somewhere in Europe or maybe Eurasia or similar. The Ozarks seems a very odd space for them to settle. You may be seeing slight where none is intended. I'd have felt it just as odd had it been somewhere in the NE, MW, or NW. Hell, I'd have felt it odd anywhere in the US except maybe Hawaii.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    8. Re:Education... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If only I had mod points.

    9. Re:Education... by Frigga's+Ring · · Score: 4, Informative

      Three reasons were called out in the article:

      John Moody and his family moved from the islands to Springdale creating an existing community of Marshalese in the US
      There's a Marshalese consulate in Springdale
      There's an existing agreement that lets the Marshalese people live and work in the US

    10. Re:Education... by Penguinisto · · Score: 2

      Agreed. Small disclosure: I'm from this particular bit of the planet. I can say that even 20 years ago, it was growing and doing very well - both academically and otherwise (especially compared with the rest of the state.) Incidentally, Fayetteville (the largest city in the area, just south of Springdale) is the home of the University of Arkansas, which is well regarded in its own right.

      As for Healthcare, it is actually top-notch when compared to most of the South, and even most of the US.

      The cost of living used to be insanely low, until Californians by the boatload began moving into the region during the 1990s; at the time, I could live very well and own a fairly nice home, all on a salary of roughly $30k/yr.

      TFA caught my attention because of the numbers. When I left in 1999, the two counties had maybe 150,000 souls living there... 10k is a pretty significant percentage, no?

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    11. Re:Education... by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      The Ozarks seems a very odd space for them to settle.

      The Ozarks are beautiful. I have a luthier friend who lives there and I visit him every Spring. At least his little patch is how I expect heaven to be, except without the insects.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    12. Re:Education... by cayenne8 · · Score: 2

      I would rather send my kid to school in the poorest Ozark school than almost any inner-city shithole school in America.

      Actually, in northern AR, there are some VERY wealthy communities up there, due mostly in part to the Walmart Walton family. There are multi-million dollar homes, and an airport, I believe, was put in just for all the business that is done up there....with industry folks coming in up there to try to get Walmart to carry their goods, etc.

      So, with that kinda money, the school system up there doesn't hurt at all.

      But, as for the rest of the state, overall, the public school system there is decent, and there are plenty of private schools that excel there too.

      If you have a picture of barefoot, Hillbillies all over Arkansas, you have a pretty poor picture of the whole state. There is a LOT of wealth in that state, hell, Little Rock has more damned banks per square foot than most any place I've ever lived. You had the Steven's corp. there too, there is a lot of money that flows through that state, it is a fairly well kept secret from most of the US I'm guessing.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    13. Re:Education... by avandesande · · Score: 1

      Better then Marshall islands. That appears to be enough.

      --
      love is just extroverted narcissism
    14. Re:Education... by SirKron · · Score: 1

      The Marshall Islands have an outreach community college based in Japan. Springdale, AR is very close to the University of Arkansas which alone far surpasses anything they had back home.

    15. Re:Education... by blind+biker · · Score: 0

      Better than what? I was under the impression that we'd put schools and infrastructure in place post WWII.

      Per capita GDP in the Marshall Islands is $2900, compared to Arkansas's $31000. Arkansas, while near the bottom among US states, is better off even compared to EU members like the Czech Republic, Slovenia, Slovakia, Estonia, Portugal, Greece, Hungary, Latvia, and Croatia.

      All of those countries have better education system than any state in the US, because all of them have free, or essentially free higher education!
      It just happens that I have lived in or visited Croatia, Slovenia, Estonia, Czech Republic and Hungary (long story why) and can also tell you that their primary and high schools are top-notch. Notice my command of the English language? Thanks to the education system of a couple of the abovementioned countries. I speak three more languages, again thanks to those education systems that you think are poorer than the one in Arkansas (based on your flawed and entirely idiotic metric of GDP).

      It's aggravating that a post so obviously devoid of any intelligence or correct information, would get modded up.

      --
      "The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
    16. Re:Education... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apparently one person did it awhile back, and it just became a thing. There's actually a really large Vietnamese and Laotian population in Arkansas as well from something similar during the Vietnam War. I agree it's an odd cultural fit, and obviously the weather is drastic different given the winters NW Arkansas can get, but sometimes all it takes is being surrounded by your community. And it's really not hard for that to gain critical mass pretty quickly.

    17. Re:Education... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Three reasons were called out in the article:

      John Moody and his family moved from the islands to Springdale creating an existing community of Marshalese in the US

      There's a Marshalese consulate in Springdale

      There's an existing agreement that lets the Marshalese people live and work in the US

      If you think about it, this is the least we can do for nuking their country when we were no even at war with them.

      read about it

    18. Re:Education... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Better than what? I was under the impression that we'd put schools and infrastructure in place post WWII.

      Per capita GDP in the Marshall Islands is $2900, compared to Arkansas's $31000. Arkansas, while near the bottom among US states, is better off even compared to EU members like the Czech Republic, Slovenia, Slovakia, Estonia, Portugal, Greece, Hungary, Latvia, and Croatia.

      All of those countries have better education system than any state in the US, because all of them have free, or essentially free higher education!
      It just happens that I have lived in or visited Croatia, Slovenia, Estonia, Czech Republic and Hungary (long story why) and can also tell you that their primary and high schools are top-notch. Notice my command of the English language? Thanks to the education system of a couple of the abovementioned countries. I speak three more languages, again thanks to those education systems that you think are poorer than the one in Arkansas (based on your flawed and entirely idiotic metric of GDP).

      It's aggravating that a post so obviously devoid of any intelligence or correct information, would get modded up.

      While aggravating, It is not really that constructive to point that out or to have the tone of personal superiority rather than pointing out that GDP and education quality are mutually exclusive sometimes. To do otherwise sounds too much like trolling to be useful to the discussion.

    19. Re:Education... by NostalgiaForInfinity · · Score: 2, Insightful

      All of those countries have better education system than any state in the US, because all of them have free, or essentially free higher education!

      Since I grew up in one of those European countries with free education, I can tell you from first hand experience that you are wrong.

      Notice my command of the English language? Thanks to the education system of a couple of the abovementioned countries. I speak three more languages, again thanks to those education systems that you think are poorer than the one in Arkansas

      Your command of the English language evidently isn't very good, since you seem to be unable to distinguish between "per capita GDP" and "quality of the education system". Your command of economics is non-existent. And your manners, well, I won't comment on those since they are self-evident.

    20. Re:Education... by under_score · · Score: 1

      I was in the Marshall Islands for 4 months back in 1996. The education available there is extremely limited and not of high quality. There is no post-secondary education available there. Standards for STEM subjects are extremely low, and the dropout rate is extremely high. At the time I was there, it was normal to have a first child in your mid-teens (for both men and women). The Seventh Day Adventist church had a semi-decent elementary school on Majuro (the main island) with youth serving as the teachers, but most of the "outer" islands had extremely minimal educational facilities. Anywhere in the US has much much much better education than the Marshall Islands.

    21. Re:Education... by tnk1 · · Score: 1

      You're absolutely right. You can choose to spend more on education as a part of your GDP and have a better educational bang for the buck.

      On the other hand, lower GDP sometimes does come back to roost elsewhere. You might have a free education, but does that translate into opportunity within those countries when you finish your education?

      An educated person can do many things, but that doesn't always means they have the chance to do so in their own country, and many times the chance to do so comes in some other country.

      Also, it is a bit unwarranted to be offended by being compared to Arkansas' education system. Although popularly considered a backwater, it's not really the same as living in a state like Alabama or Mississippi. There are plenty of good options for education in Arkansas. Although like the rest of the US, higher education is not free, that actually says little about the quality of the education itself, only about it's general availability to anyone who wants an education. While it is a comparative hardship, people can and do pay for university with the aid of grants and loans.

    22. Re:Education... by blogagog · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Just an fyi - Arkansas (as well as most rural areas) get better test scores than our largest cities like NYC, Chicago, and LA. If you can't get into a suburban public school, go for a rural one before you do the city route.

    23. Re:Education... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or these things people complain about here really aren't as bad as they claim to be. Whiners whine. We have it pretty darn good here in the U.S.A.

    24. Re:Education... by blind+biker · · Score: 1

      The claim about a correlation between per capita GDP and education system quality was not made by me, but by the GP. Take that issue up with him/her.

      --
      "The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
    25. Re:Education... by blind+biker · · Score: 1

      All of those countries have better education system than any state in the US, because all of them have free, or essentially free higher education!

      Since I grew up in one of those European countries with free education, I can tell you from first hand experience that you are wrong.

      Having free higher education is by default a huge advantage compared to the US. You have not provided any argument against my claim. Just "you are wrong".

      --
      "The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
    26. Re:Education... by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      because all of them have free, or essentially free higher education!

      My fancy US education taught me that there is no such thing as a free lunch.

      The education is not free unless the teachers are all volunteers.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    27. Re:Education... by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      They weren't given citizenship in Australia, Europe or Eurasia.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    28. Re:Education... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've lived in Arkansas my entire life. I rarely respond to any comment about Arkansas because, well, I've heard negative comments about the State all my life. It is true that there are some really poor, uneducated, people in Arkansas. But I've done a bit of traveling throughout the country and I've found poor, uneducated, people in every State I've visited. Granted, Northwest Arkansas (where Springdale is located) is very different from most rural areas of our State. J.B. Hunt, Tyson, Wal-Mart all have corporate offices in NWA. Schools in NWA are very nice. In fact, Bentonville High School is highly rated (http://www.usnews.com/education/best-high-schools/arkansas/districts/bentonville-school-district/bentonville-high-school-1242). But, I'm okay with people thinking Arkansas is a dump because it keeps our State nicer. Do you think we want the brilliant masterminds running States like California to move here? No, thanks.

    29. Re:Education... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sanctimonious assholes like KGill and Opportunist don't bother with the reality of communities. They simply rely on their own stereotypes from 100 years ago.

      The fact is that the gap between the "worst" and "best" schools isn't all that much if you exclude the kids that are not there to learn. I don't think we should hold schools responsible for little drug dealers, hookers, and "No Hable" Illegals.

    30. Re:Education... by JonnyCalcutta · · Score: 1

      Your fancy education is wrong. I know several ways to get a free lunch, including - picking it from a tree, shooting and cooking it, going through the bins (trash), eating roadkill, visiting my gran's house, shoplifting, etc, etc.

    31. Re:Education... by JoeMerchant · · Score: 0

      Funny thing about "modern education" and "healthcare" - if you live on a "primitive" island without all the challenges of "modern" western civilization, you don't really need that education, or even healthcare.

      Micro-example: 1990 I toured east Germany for a few weeks, the food was primitive and dull, the facilities were entirely lacking, and I had no problems whatsoever. The following week, I went to Dusseldorf, and within 12 hours in the city contracted a case of blood poisioning - which their modern hospital readily treated. If I had gotten that blood poisioning in the east, I would have been screwed - but: I didn't, and the odds of contracting that kind of disease were probably a thousand times lower outside the "big modern city."

      Another one: Houston has the best cancer treatment center - arguably in the world. They also have some of the highest cancer rates....

    32. Re:Education... by ultranova · · Score: 1

      If I had gotten that blood poisioning in the east, I would have been screwed - but: I didn't, and the odds of contracting that kind of disease were probably a thousand times lower outside the "big modern city."

      "Probably" based on what?

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    33. Re:Education... by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      You must have missed the lesson where if there is someone paying for it, it isn't free.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    34. Re:Education... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe the fact the GP can't make an argument IS the argument? :D

    35. Re:Education... by The-Ixian · · Score: 1

      Yep, as always, the "issues" are escalated with FUD and the crowd is whipped into a frenzy, given a gun and pointed toward a straw man.

      While everyone is focused on the "talking points" the real problems slip through the cracks and another election cycle goes down the drain.

      --
      My eyes reflect the stars and a smile lights up my face.
    36. Re:Education... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I suspect the main reason is political. Citizen's of the Marshall Islands have easy entrance to the U.S., based on the post WWII status of the Islands. I expect its much harder for of a citizen of the Marshall Islands to emigrate to Australia, Europe or most Eurasian countries.

    37. Re:Education... by parkinglot777 · · Score: 1

      The claim about a correlation between per capita GDP and education system quality was not made by me, but by the GP. Take that issue up with him/her.

      You better reread the GP post again. There is NOTHING saying that per capita GDP relates to education system. What GP said was Marshall Island has much less per capita compared to AK. And AK has higher per capita than those mentioned countries even though AK per capita is in the low compared to other states in the US...

      Per capita GDP in the Marshall Islands is $2900, compared to Arkansas's $31000. Arkansas, while near the bottom among US states, is better off even compared to EU members like the Czech Republic, Slovenia, Slovakia, Estonia, Portugal, Greece, Hungary, Latvia, and Croatia.

    38. Re:Education... by ridley4 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, dying of easily-vaccinated diseases, small cuts that get infected, and bad colds sounds great! Let's ditch this western civilization stuff and move back into huts made out of mud, feces, and straw right now!

      Why spend our days in comfortable, air conditioned homes discussing intellectual matters over a world-spanning network of computers with such broad-spanning implications on everyone's lives that only fifty years ago would be only the talk of crazy people? Right now, we could instead live without these odious western 'challenges' with a natural life of being bitten dozens of times by mosquitoes while huddling around the fire, with miserable heat and godawful humidity, sunburnt and exhausted from the day's possibly fruitless hunt.

      My favorite part is of this is getting to enjoy a slow, painful death to infection at 30 because you slipped and cut yourself on an unfortunately placed stick or rock - if not the sharpened rock on a stick (that's not too western, is it?) you, hopefully/maybe, get to kill your dinner with.

      Yeah, the west has a high cancer rate. Know why?
      Because the less developed world tends to have hazards greater than the mechanical imperfections of our own bodies. Hard to get a high cancer rate when you die before it can start.

      Think for a moment why the village elder - so to speak - is either a tiny council or in the singular, while in the West we outright need infrastructure to handle our masses of elderly.

    39. Re:Education... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The atoll probably doesn't have enough to give a choice of schooling, whereas the USA is large enough, even Arkansas, to have sufficient children of schooling age to support a fairly heavy density of schools, giving plenty of choice.

      Plus the atoll won't have much money, since they don't have any resources to fall back on in the face of competition from bigger countries. Even Arkansas can get federal aid. And generally gets more than it collects.

    40. Re:Education... by sn0wcrash · · Score: 1

      Why are you bringing Alaska into this?

    41. Re:Education... by gstovall · · Score: 1

      Better than what? I was under the impression that we'd put schools and infrastructure in place post WWII.

      Per capita GDP in the Marshall Islands is $2900, compared to Arkansas's $31000.

      One other factor is that the urban conglomerate of Springdale/Fayetteville/Rogers/Bentonville has a substantially higher per-capita income than the rest of the state. The schools are quite good and well-funded, since this is the headquarters for Wal-Mart (with all the correspondingly highly paid execs). First-year teachers in Springdale make $46K/year, while first year teachers elsewhere in the state start at $30K.

    42. Re:Education... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You must have missed the lesson where if there is someone paying for it, it isn't free.

      How much do you pay for sunshine when you go to the beach or hiking in the mountains?

    43. Re:Education... by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      It depends on who owns the land, and if you used sunscreen. You could be paying for the doctor to treat your melanoma, you paid for the calories you are burning, the wear and tear on your clothing and shoes, the gas to get there (if you drive...not always the case).

      What does that have to do with a free lunch not being free?

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    44. Re:Education... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why would anybody in this situation bother with Australia? The AU government is running an extensive marketing campaign throughout the region making it abundantly clear that any refugees will be denied settlement.

    45. Re:Education... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The consulate opened in Springdale because Marshallese were there in number. The consul used to regularly fly down to attend to citizens' affairs.

      Northwest Arkansas isn't the backwater that some would make it out to be. The economy is strong -- its home to the worlds largest retailer (Walmart) one of the giants in transportation and logistics (JB Hunt), and the world's largest protein packer (Tyson Foods), the climate is nice, housing is affordable, and education is good (my child's high school had over 21 National Merit finalists her graduation year). The main campus of the University of Arkansas is in Fayetteville.

      The aunt of a friend used to say something that really sums up Arkansans -- "I don't mind people thinking I'm dumb ... until its too late!"

    46. Re:Education... by starkadder · · Score: 1

      the MSA has grown considerabley since you left.. its population is over double that now at 320,000.

    47. Re:Education... by starkadder · · Score: 1

      AK is Alaska. AR is Arkansas. Rookie mistake....

    48. Re:Education... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sanctimonious assholes like KGill and Opportunist don't bother with the reality of communities. They simply rely on their own stereotypes from 100 years ago.

      The fact is that the gap between the "worst" and "best" schools isn't all that much if you exclude the kids that are not there to learn. I don't think we should hold schools responsible for little drug dealers, hookers, and "No Hable" Illegals.

      You forgot to add rural meth addicts and bibled-home-schooled into the mix.

    49. Re:Education... by KGIII · · Score: 1

      True. They certainly do deserve such. IIRC we bombed the ever living hell out of a few of their islands. I probably should have prefaced my statement with them coming to the US at all. I mean, if you get to pick anywhere... See, I kind of figure that they could have gone on television and said, "The US sucks, they bombed the hell out of us with nukes" and *any* country would have jumped on the opportunity to accept them as refugees. But they picked the Ozarks? That baffles the hell out of me. I'm going to go down there and find out what the hell is going on. Maybe. I'm in DC and will be here for a couple of weeks.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    50. Re:Education... by KGIII · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure they could have gone on TV, said the US nuked our islands, and gotten free admission to *any* country. They certainly deserve US citizenship. See, I can live anywhere on this planet I want - within reason, I probably can't live in Antarctica. I live in the US - by choice. I live here because this is where my family and history is and because I don't want to run from the problems. If I did not live here, I would not come here by choice.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    51. Re:Education... by KGIII · · Score: 1

      I think you mistook my statement and saw slight where there was none intended. I suspect that was due to my verbiage and not being entirely clear. I've been to AR and like it and the people just fine. You'll note, I did not say they were stupid - I said the opposite. However, if the world were your oyster (so to speak) and you could go anywhere, had no ties with the area, probably couldn't even find the Ozarks on a map, and wanted to move - would you *really* pick AR and working for Tyson?

      By the way, the way you can smell the plant for miles is always amusing. It smells like, to me, a chicken in the oven. Makes me hungry as hell.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    52. Re:Education... by KGIII · · Score: 1

      I'd agree with that. It still doesn't explain why they'd pick the Ozarks except maybe as the path of least resistance. I've made a few other replies since returning, if you're curious then feel free to read them. I'd expect that they could have gone anywhere. Every country would take them just to get the PR points of taking in the poor refugees because the US bombed their friggen island(s) (two that I can think of but I'm not sure if the second one is in the Marshall group) with nukes!

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    53. Re:Education... by KGIII · · Score: 1

      Nifty. It seems like a place to go if you want to try to help or if you want to do a whole lot of nothing. I'm kind of lazy so I'll throw money at stuff and let them do the work - though I sometimes get my hands dirty.

      Anyhow, that's a valid point but still doesn't make sense. These people really only needed to get some PR about the US nuking them and *every* country on the planet would take them in as refugees. You've traveled. If you could go, literally, anywhere on the planet then would you choose the Ozarks? Would you even pick the US? How bad does it have to be where the US is your first option???

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    54. Re:Education... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      haha, not a chance. Our on again off again climate denying governments wouldn't accept foreigners. Hell we lead the world in climate denial so as Jesus said "There is a place for everyone but that place isn't Australia".

    55. Re:Education... by KGIII · · Score: 1

      That they are, that they are. You should get into the NW part of Maine (or the coast, or both) and you'll see why I retired there. I'm really missing it but DC is nice this time of year. I may just winter in Florida for a while and then finish the winter up in NV. I'm still missing home. :/ But, I'll almost certainly be in the Ozarks in the near future.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    56. Re:Education... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You haven't made an argument supporting your claim. In fact, you simply fabricate one claim after another.

      All of those countries have better education system than any state in the US, because all of them have free, or essentially free higher education!

      Evidence? None. Fabrication on your part.

      Having free higher education is by default a huge advantage compared to the US.

      Evidence? None. Fabrication on your part.

    57. Re:Education... by KGIII · · Score: 1

      LOL That might be true. I almost hooked up with a chick, long term, and visited a couple of times - with both times being extended durations. I'd have had to pay a goodly sum and then still might not have been granted citizenship even if we married. It was one of the primary reasons that things didn't work out and I ended up not selecting Cann River to retire at.

      I'm thinking that these people could have gone to the media and said, "The US nuked our islands [plural, I think we made two inhabitable] and we're being flooded!" At that point, simply for the PR, I'd think even Oz would take 'em - if not the Kiwis would. I'm sure all of W. Europe would have taken them. I'd have actually expected Oz to take 'em as this has been happening for years now and it would look good. I'd have expected them to end up in Eurasia, maybe?

      The US? The Ozarks, in all of the US? That is a very strange choice. It appears to have just snowballed and be the path of least resistance. They get granted (I think) citizenship in the US automatically because we, you know, used their home as a nuclear test ground. I understand that but I'd think that they'd be able to go most anywhere with just a little bit of whining on international television.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    58. Re:Education... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was the GP poster. I made no claim about correlation between per capita GDP an education system. To the contrary, I pointed out that "no matter how much 'schools and infrastructure' we put in place, a pacific atoll simply doesn't have much to support a thriving economy: it is poorly located for physical or data traffic, has few natural resources, and has always been at high risk of natural disasters"

      You then came up with a tirade about education "All of those countries have better education system than any state in the US, because all of them have free, or essentially free higher education!"

      Face it, you are functionally illiterate.

    59. Re:Education... by Ferretman · · Score: 1

      Well said sir!

      Ferret

      --
      Sic gorgiamus allos subjectatos nunc
    60. Re:Education... by JoeMerchant · · Score: 1

      Take an actual look at the cancer statistics, it's not because Houstonians live so long that they finally get cancer, it's taking them earlier than almost anywhere else you might choose to live:

      http://statecancerprofiles.can...

      http://www.texasmonthly.com/ar...

      I live in Florida, so, yeah, I like my air conditioning. And, on the whole, modern medicine is a good thing - even when taken with the drawbacks of modern life. On the other hand, living in a so-called backwards place isn't nearly as bad as being in a modern society stripped of the good stuff, like poverty can do.

    61. Re:Education... by Plumpaquatsch · · Score: 1

      I'd have expected them to go to Australia or maybe somewhere in Southern Europe or even parts of Eurasia.

      Why would they? The Marshall Islands where under US administration for over 3 decades and still not only has close financial ties (as in gets aid) to the USA, they also have an agreement that the citizens can go to the USA to live and work there "as nonimmigrants for an unlimited length of time". Why would they go any place else where they don't get these benefits, when many people from those places are struggling to get a US Green Card.

      --
      Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
    62. Re:Education... by KGIII · · Score: 1

      Why? Because my country has been steadily going downhill in many areas over that same time-frame. It has, also, improved in some areas. I suspect that it was the path of least resistance which even accounts for that specific location within the US. I think they've been able to get citizenship since not long after we did some testing there with nuclear weapons? I don't recall the specific year.

      Anyhow, my thinking was, "Those folks in the US bombed us and took our rights to use our land from us!" What country would't want the publicity of taking them in? I live in the US because I have ties here and am, at heart, a patriot but I could live anywhere. If I did not have those ties then I can think of places that I'd have put at the top of the list and those places aren't the US. We have our faults and frailties, as do other places, but without ties and a desire to see things through - I'd reside elsewhere. I don't because I am not a coward and hope to continue making changes, however small or large, until I am unable to do so any more. I don't expect that from them.

      They quite probably could have had their pick of countries simply by creating some noise in the media. I'm honored that they chose the US but I'm still kind of surprised by this.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    63. Re: Education... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The article sounds very fishy from my perspective. Arkansas is one of the last places on earth I would actually go to to look for a job being that this is one of the worst states in the Union to find work. Most people have to leave to find much work above labor jobs. Then it talked about rising sea levels when we now have more Antarctic ice than we ever have in recorded history. Oh I'm afraid the Marshall Islands will be very far above sea water in the next millennia. Anytime I hear of a place where supposedly someone is fleeing you have to look a little closer and get some kind of visual. I can go to the same marked rock where someone carved their initials 50 years ago and high tide still comes to the exact same spot as it always has for the carving. We might as well be preparing for a big foot uprising. One has as much chance of happening as the other.

    64. Re: Education... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Atolls naturally sink due to plate tectonics, but it takes a really long, long time.

    65. Re: Education... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you have a picture of barefoot, Hillbillies all over Arkansas, you are a bigot.

    66. Re:Education... by TheTurtlesMoves · · Score: 1

      food poisoning doesn't kill you. Unless your like 101 or something. It is your body saving you. Sure it feels like dying. But it's not actually dying. I mean what the hell do you think? modern city food has lower health standards than that open fire in the middle of the rain forrest?

      --
      The Grey Goo disaster happened 3 billion years ago. This rock is covered in self replicating machines!
    67. Re:Education... by Plumpaquatsch · · Score: 1

      Gee, you didn't read what I wrote at all, did you? Or do you not have the mental capacity to understand? Is it the American education system you talked about?

      --
      Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
    68. Re:Education... by lsatenstein · · Score: 1

      Expect a bunch of Arizonians to join them. Climate change is going to make it too hot in summer to enjoy Arizona. I can see Arizona being mothballed from June to beginning of October, and then enjoying a rush of golden ager's for the remaining months.

      And where flooding is a problem, expect those regions to send another influx of people. Arkansas has a low cost of housing.

      --
      Leslie Satenstein Montreal Quebec Canada
    69. Re:Education... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I lived in northwest Arkansas for seven years. Schools in Rogers, Springdale, and Fayetteville are actually pretty good, even though teachers are paid horribly in the state. These are modern cities, not towns with fewer than 1000 people. And as much as the idea makes people elsewhere snicker, Walmart has done a lot for the region economically. My spouse and I are both from Arkansas, and we live on the west coast now and each have graduate degrees. Intellectually, you get the same quality of people regardless of where you are or how much your parents make. There are plenty of reasons why I don't intend to move back there, but it still gets my hackles up to see snide remarks about the area just because flyover states are low hanging fruit.

    70. Re:Education... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For someone so smart your reading comprehension skills are lacking. Reread what the OP wrote.

    71. Re:Education... by DedTV · · Score: 1

      I grew up in California, bouncing between the central SQ valley (Fresno area) and the bay area but have lived in Northwest Arkansas for about 15 years now while still returning to CA frequently. It's really not a bad place to live.
      Pretty much anywhere more than 10 miles from a major highway is serious banjo country, but the cities (mostly) aren't. Springdale is in the Bentonville to Fayetteville strip of Arkansas where Walmart's HQ is. The schools and healthcare in the area are well funded and are miles above what can be found in the rural areas that make up the majority of the state that skew overall rankings and data to make things seem a lot more backwards than they actually are.
      It also has a very low cost of living. A new 2500sq ft. "luxury" home on a quarter acre in Arkansas cost me $320k (~$1.6k/mo on a 30 year note). Our 820 sq ft SF apartment cost almost 2x as much a month in 1994.

      Living here seems more like Sacramento or a SF suburb than the boondocks I expected when I moved here. For refugees, it's not a bad place to settle.

    72. Re:Education... by KGIII · · Score: 1

      Err... Are you mentally incapacitated? I read, understood (I'm pretty sure), and replied with why I still felt that it was an unusual choice and likely the path of least resistance instead of the choice I'd have made if I were in their shoes. This is not complicated, I even listed reasoning and, elsewhere, alternatives. You don't really think the US is the best choice, do you?

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    73. Re:Education... by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      The reason much of Micronesia and Polynesia were settled so late in human migration (many places just a few thousand years ago)

      The more obvious reason is that settling them requires seafaring craft, which requires a sufficiently advanced technological society to produce.

    74. Re:Education... by NostalgiaForInfinity · · Score: 1

      The more obvious reason is that settling them requires seafaring craft, which requires a sufficiently advanced technological society to produce.

      That may be obvious to you, but it's wrong. The technology to settle these islands has existed for many thousands of years, but people only attempted to move on to new islands once population pressures on old islands forced them to. That's because these voyages are arduous and dangerous, and that's why the settlement of the Polynesian islands was spread out over thousands of years.

    75. Re:Education... by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      From what I remember, the technology to reach those islands requires a multibody craft such as an outrigger canoe (for stability), or else large ships of a kind that wouldn't appear much later - you can't really cross thousands of miles of ocean on a raft or in a simple boat. How old is the oldest known discovered outrigger?

    76. Re:Education... by NostalgiaForInfinity · · Score: 1

      Look, my point was that low-lying atolls are resource starved and not very productive places to live; people there are always going to be comparatively poor.

      My comment about the late settlement was merely meant to illustrate that point, not to prove it: people undertake these risky and arduous voyages only when they faced strong population pressures. There is ample literature on that. Technologies for longer sea voyages were likely also developed in response to population and resource constraints, and the need to venture further out for fishing, trade, and colonization. As for the settlement of Polynesia, it started in about 1000BC and mostly ended around 1300AD; that's a long time span compared to the time for any individual atoll to become overpopulated.

    77. Re:Education... by Plumpaquatsch · · Score: 1

      Err... Are you mentally incapacitated?

      Nope. It's just your fucking weird view of the world where people get their weight in gold if they say something bad about the US on TV. And thanks for confirming you didn't understand a word I wrote. Both because you were educated by the system you whine about, probably.

      --
      Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
  2. AGW deniers... by DavidHumus · · Score: 0, Troll

    ...meet AGW refugees.

    1. Re:AGW deniers... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...meet AGW refugees.

      What part of "For more than three decades..." is hard for you to understand?

    2. Re:AGW deniers... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Except, the claim is they started fleeing in 1979. I was a senior in college then taking a physics of the weather class. We were in the middle of global cooling, and that was most of what the class talked about. There's no way there was a problem then. That was before Raygun decided to really crank-up the temperature of the Earth in order to hurt the poor and minorities.

    3. Re:AGW deniers... by cbeaudry · · Score: 0, Troll

      You do realise they have been moving there for 3 decades, its right there in TFA.

      This community was just a great opportunity to spin the climate refugee nonsense.

    4. Re: AGW deniers... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That was during global cooling. Since the the Relublicans have killed millions with global warming.

    5. Re: AGW deniers... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Halliburton was founded the in 1919, so they've been doing this for a long time before 1979.

    6. Re: AGW deniers... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just because we were wrong then about cooling doesn't mean we're wrong now.

    7. Re: AGW deniers... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They hate humanity and are trying to kill us all.

    8. Re: AGW deniers... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No. Global cooling was only ever talked about by racists. It never existed.

    9. Re:AGW deniers... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      > Raygun decided to really crank-up the temperature of the Earth

      I'm starting to understand the "liberalism is a mental disorder" thing.

    10. Re: AGW deniers... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good point about Reagan. He really hated the Earth and did all he could to destroy it. He was almost successful in convincing the military to use nuclear weapons.

    11. Re: AGW deniers... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm shocked they haven't created another Katrina.

    12. Re: AGW deniers... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did you forget about Sandy that they used to punish Bloomberg for leaving their party.

    13. Re: AGW deniers... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He was afraid nuclear winter would undo his hard work at warming.

    14. Re:AGW deniers... by NostalgiaForInfinity · · Score: 2

      I welcome Pacific Islanders. There is about 3 million people in Micronesia, Polynesia, and Melanesia, and maybe half of them are living on these kinds of marginal atolls. The US has one million legal immigrants per year; this is a drop in the bucket. We should welcome these people with open arms, for their benefit and for ours.

    15. Re: AGW deniers... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No. There was warming then. People were already dying by the millions, and the 1983 famine in Ethiopia that was caused by the Republican's global warming was only four years later.

    16. Re: AGW deniers... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It isn't spin if it is the truth. The Republicans have been forcing people to flee their homes for decades because of AGW.

    17. Re: AGW deniers... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And he tried to drown these people.

    18. Re: AGW deniers... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They're trying to drown those poor people.

    19. Re:AGW deniers... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They don't belong here.

    20. Re:AGW deniers... by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 0

      ...meet AGW refugees.

      "0 Troll"

      There is so much irony in some people modding you down - it would stick to a magnet.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    21. Re:AGW deniers... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, you dont belong here either.

    22. Re: AGW deniers... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cool I didn't know only republicans drive cars or flew on airplanes.

    23. Re:AGW deniers... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're a fucking moron.

    24. Re:AGW deniers... by Howitzer86 · · Score: 1

      Although unlikely, It would be interesting if they all came to Arkansas. The states population is about 3 million, that "drop in the bucket" would completely change the nature of it... probably for the better.

    25. Re: AGW deniers... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      so they can buy them up cheap?

    26. Re: AGW deniers... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They're trying to drown those poor people.

      We have nuked them many orders of magnitude more than we did Japan in WWII.

      Google Marshall Islands and you will learn how that set of islands is the "Most contaminated place on Earth."

      I say, we should let these people have a free pass into the US.

    27. Re:AGW deniers... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes we do. We have a manifest destiny. Don't you know anything about history?

    28. Re:AGW deniers... by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      Take a look at the actual sea level data from Majuro records. The data fits a nice non-inclining 3rd order sinusoidal function with peaks and dips in the average sea level. And no sign of acceleration (unless you do a linear regression with a terrible R^2 fit of 0.11).The sea level isn't really rising much, if any. If the level of the atoll is falling, it's either subsidence or natural decline that comes from living on a pile of coral in the middle of the ocean.

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    29. Re:AGW deniers... by JonnyCalcutta · · Score: 1

      Its the jumping, Every time someone on the atoll jumps, its sinks by a tiny amount. Unfortunately pogo sticks are the national pastime.

    30. Re:AGW deniers... by sudon't · · Score: 1

      They didn't "begin fleeing" en masse in 1979. One guy moved there. That said, global warming wasn't unheard of in '79. It was predicted in the 19th century, and scientists were well aware of it in the seventies, even if the media wasn't.

      Also, "Raygun decided to really crank-up the temperature of the Earth in order to hurt the poor and minorities."? That's a childish view. Environmental regulations were gutted to make donors wealthier. The poor are not part of the equation.

      --
      -- sudon't

      Air-ride Equipped

    31. Re:AGW deniers... by sudon't · · Score: 1

      Please, O Right Wing Troll, your views are every bit as ideological and simplistic as his.

      --
      -- sudon't

      Air-ride Equipped

    32. Re:AGW deniers... by riverat1 · · Score: 1

      Here's the tide gauge for Kwajalein Atoll in the Marshal Islands. It looks like it was put in in 1946 or 1947. Since then there's been over 6 inches of SLR in the Marshalls. 6 inches vertical rise means many feet of horizontal spread. When your maximum elevation is about 6 feet all it takes is a large king tide or major storm surge to wash over the islands.

      In looking at the graph it has dropped quite a bit in the past year. I believe that is because of the El Nino which pushes more water toward the Eastern Pacific. If you look back in the graph there were big drops in the 1997/1998 and 1982/1983 which also were strong El Nino years.

    33. Re: AGW deniers... by riverat1 · · Score: 2

      No one was wrong about cooling. There were a few speculative papers about the possibilities but there were 7 times as many about warming (from 1965 to 1979).

    34. Re:AGW deniers... by riverat1 · · Score: 1

      That tide gauge wasn't even installed until 1993. I found one for Kwajalein Atoll that's been there since 1947. It does show sea level rise of around 6 inches. There are several big dips in the sea level that appear to correspond to El Nino years when the winds push water toward the Eastern Pacific.

    35. Re:AGW deniers... by Bartles · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but if more people don't leave the Marshall Islands, they might tip over like Guam.

    36. Re:AGW deniers... by grcumb · · Score: 1

      I welcome Pacific Islanders. There is about 3 million people in Micronesia, Polynesia, and Melanesia, and maybe half of them are living on these kinds of marginal atolls.

      There are 7.3 million people in Papua New Guinea alone—almost 10 million in Melanesia altogether. Happily, most of them live on volcanic islands which won't be as severely affected by sea level rise. Although, for the record, Vanuatu (where I live) was hit by a record-setting cyclone in March, and is currently enduring drought induced by the worst El Niño in recorded history.

      Anyway, far less than half of all Pacific islanders live on low-lying atolls. The population of Kiribati is just over 100,000. Tuvalu is a mere 10,000, Federated States of Micronesia is about 100,000, and the Marshalls are just 52,000.

      If the measure of their importance is simply counting lives, these places don't matter much.

      But if the measure of importance is that they're the proverbial canary in the coal mine (sorry), then yeah, they kind of matter. And how we treat them is going to set a precedent for how we treat the hundreds of millions who will quickly follow—most of whom are likely to be domestic climate refugees.

      --
      Crumb's Corollary: Never bring a knife to a bun fight.
    37. Re:AGW deniers... by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      ...meet AGW refugees.

      "0 Troll"

      There is so much irony in some people modding you down - it would stick to a magnet.

      Perhaps I was not clear. The irony in the poster modded as a troll, and my comment modded as off topic is a complete denial of AGW, a complete denial of people who live at essentially sea level now being chased out due to rising sea levels.

      Perhaps the first time a story about AGW has a reply about AGW, and is apparently off topic to mention AGW in a story about AGW

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    38. Re:AGW deniers... by NostalgiaForInfinity · · Score: 1

      There are 7.3 million people in Papua New Guinea alone—almost 10 million in Melanesia altogether.

      Obviously, I was excluding New Zealand and Papua New Guinea, which is where the 3 million figure comes from.

      Anyway, far less than half of all Pacific islanders live on low-lying atolls.

      Hence, the 3 million is an upper bound. Great, you're at least thinking along...

      But if the measure of importance is that they're the proverbial canary in the coal mine (sorry), then yeah, they kind of matter. And how we treat them is going to set a precedent for how we treat the hundreds of millions who will quickly follow—most of whom are likely to be domestic climate refugees.

      Low-lying atolls are a special case: they are temporary to begin with and have always had marginal living conditions. They aren't a "canary in a coal mine" for anything.

      the hundreds of millions who will quickly follow—most of whom are likely to be domestic climate refugees.

      That's ludicrous. At about half a meter per century sea level rise, nobody becomes a "climate refugee"; as people's homes age, they will simply rebuild a little further from the coast.

    39. Re: AGW deniers... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yep, and all are disproven by record amounts of sea use.

  3. Key question by prefec2 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Are they Muslims? If so this is the end to our America. And look they criticize our way of live. We will not change our ways just for a flipping atoll who have for no apparent reason access to the US. It is our right to drive where other people would walk. And it is our right to have this great market economy. Yes we can become rich. Every decent person can become rich. And we will not allow to destroy this by some island folks or the pope who is not a true Christian. Look he just visited a Mosque in Africa. And there is no such thing as human made global warming, because if there were we would have to give up our birth rights. We will never do that.
    -- signed, Republican Simbot v0.5a

    1. Re:Key question by NotDrWho · · Score: 5, Funny

      Are they Muslims? Well in that case they're oppressed and we must defend them and their religion no matter what they do. anyway, we know Muslims can do no wrong, because all evil in the world is caused by white heterosexual Christian males. Everyone else is an oppressed child who must be coddled, indulged, and taken care of by the evil oppressive white Christian patriarchy. And if you dare say any differently, you're a racist, sexist, bigot who should be banned from speaking in public, banned from the internet, kicked out of university, and arrested.
      -- signed, Democrat Simbot v0.5a

      --
      SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
    2. Re:Key question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Unlike muslims, these people are going to the US through legal channels, so I wouldn't worry too much.

    3. Re:Key question by Big+Hairy+Ian · · Score: 1

      Unlike muslims, these people are going to the US through legal channels, so I wouldn't worry too much.

      Are you saying that all Muslims going to the US are doing so illegally? Think you need to spend more time in preview before you post

      --

      Build a Man a Fire, and He'll Be Warm for a Day. Set a Man on Fire, and He'll Be Warm for the Rest of His Life.

    4. Re:Key question by Nidi62 · · Score: 1

      Are they Muslims?

      Probably not. But if global warming continues we might have adherents of cargo cults from Vanuatu move to the US. They even worship Americans. Literally: they have "gods" named John Frum and Tom Navy who are depicted as US servicemen during WWII.

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    5. Re:Key question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't you have a church or medical center to shoot up?

    6. Re:Key question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are they Muslims? Well in that case they're oppressed and we must defend them and their religion no matter what they do. anyway, we know Muslims can do no wrong, because all evil in the world is caused by white heterosexual Christian males. Everyone else is an oppressed child who must be coddled, indulged, and taken care of by the evil oppressive white Christian patriarchy. And if you dare say any differently, you're a racist, sexist, bigot who should be banned from speaking in public, banned from the internet, kicked out of university, and arrested.
      -- signed, Democrat Simbot v0.5a

      you're definitely NOT Doctor Who, missing the point like that.

    7. Re:Key question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It (mostly) worked for the people who wanted the Charlie Hedbo cartoons suppressed.

    8. Re:Key question by unixisc · · Score: 1

      No, they're not Muslims. That's somewhere in the deep Pacific, where thankfully, Islam never arrived

    9. Re:Key question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ENOSENSEOFHUMOr

    10. Re:Key question by desdinova+216 · · Score: 1

      is a True Christian anything like a True Scotsman?

    11. Re:Key question by wyHunter · · Score: 1

      Clearly, you must be a Democrat, as you're quite deranged.

    12. Re:Key question by orlanz · · Score: 1

      I am going to vote for one of the two above. If you don't like either, vote for me as I am the third option. Please?
      -- signed, Independent Simbot v0.1

    13. Re: Key question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Muslim deniers meet Paris...

    14. Re:Key question by TexNex · · Score: 1

      No, the Marshallese are mainly christian though they do keep to cultural norms similar to the Tongans & Samoans.

    15. Re: Key question by prefec2 · · Score: 1

      So then they are like Mexicans. --Trump mode

      Disclaimer: I know that they are Christians. This was not really the point of my post.

    16. Re: Key question by TexNex · · Score: 1

      A great deal like Mexicans unfortunately. Their system of government is riddled with corruption & nepotism while the people suffer high taxes and bad diets (diabetes kills a good %). Each atoll has their own monarchy with the federal stuff handled in Majuro. They get enough money from the US to make some real improvements but, funds that doesn't slip into someone's pocket seem to be used ineffectively.
      So while your statement was in jest, you are quite correct in many respects.

  4. Refugees? Not so much. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Didn't read the article (do we even do that here?), but the summary itself says the first "refugee" was in 1979, and that there haven't actually been any repercussions from climate change; rather, these folks just didn't like living on islands in the ocean anymore.

    1. Re: Refugees? Not so much. by Orne · · Score: 1, Informative

      It's AGW week. "Climate change refugees" for something that hasn't happened yet is more PC than saying they moved to the USA because it's the "land of opportunity", providing jobs and education, with "chain immigration" policies making it easy to import thousands relatives once the first legal immigrant arrives.

    2. Re:Refugees? Not so much. by Rei · · Score: 2

      Huh? It says right in the summary: "Moody's family eventually moved to Springdale to live with him and work for Tyson and other poultry companies based in Arkansas". Is "working for Tyson" slang for "running from climate change" that I've never heard of?

      Too bad I'm not a sculptor, I'd love to launch a climate change-related kickstarter which both sides could get behind. I'd offer to - if I could raise the expenses - make life-sized bronze statues of the world's most prominent climate-change deniers and install them on popular beaches around the world where permission could be gotten. Each statue would be on a pedestal on which is engraved one of their more prominent quotes denying climate change. The proportions of the statues would be such that at low tide the base of the pedestal is at sea height, while at high tide the top of the pedestal is at sea height, and the total height of the person matches up to the projected sea level rise over the next century.

      Hence, if those denying climate change are right, a century forth they're left with a statue on their beach mocking all of the Chicken Littles. If those arguing that it's real are correct, they get to gloat as they watch the statue sink a bit further beneath the waves every year for the rest of their lives and a cautionary dive site for future generations.

      --
      I hate to bring up our imminent arrest during your crazy time, but we gotta move.
    3. Re:Refugees? Not so much. by Rich_Lather · · Score: 1

      That's funny. I'd put in $5 to your kickstarter.

    4. Re:Refugees? Not so much. by thaylin · · Score: 1

      So the constant and relatively new flooding the island is getting is caused by what?

      --
      When you cant win, ad hominem.
    5. Re:Refugees? Not so much. by cirby · · Score: 1

      At least it would be cheap to do.

      The total height of the statues would be about a foot, if you're scaling them to actual projected sea level rise from the long-term trend since the start of AGW.

      If you take the "extreme" current predictions, they'd have to be about three feet tall.

    6. Re: Refugees? Not so much. by khallow · · Score: 1

      Plus, chain immigration is how most ancestors of US residents got there in the first place.

    7. Re: Refugees? Not so much. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry, we have one, in new York harbor area. It's not underwater yet. Still high and dry. They even have sprinklers to water the yard to drain the salt spray. I guess none of you watch sports, the refugees are big in games in Arkansas. Education, I'd put ark up against any Ive league school. And the people are very liberal, they will let you finish your rant. But don't try to confuse them with rhetoric, they are not gullible like you. They like everyone to be honest.
      But, like every population grouping, they have bad points. Those with, don't share, won't help, and feel entitled to what you have. But the average wage is 31k, and the Walton's still live there. So, guess what the average wage of Tyson and Walmart is?

    8. Re: Refugees? Not so much. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not new. It's in a major pathway of storms. Every now and then there are "big" storms. And the blue skies go to steel. That's a bad day. There is nothing to stop the wind. Until it hits the shore. The waves pile up, and flood the shore. But, now, they have cold to face. Tornadoes and ice. Now, the Nina is on our side, of the ocean, their tide gauges should show a downward trend and the storms increase, because of the greater differential in surface temps, water/air. But that will mediate when their warm water returns.

    9. Re:Refugees? Not so much. by Rei · · Score: 1

      RCP8,5 is 0,53-0,98m by 2100... which is only about 84 years from now. With the rise at 2100 predicted at around 0,9-1,8cm/yr over the 2100-2116 period (minus the current 0,32-0,36mm/yr) the total would be something like 0,62m-1,21m (2' to 4') - basically, a typical person sitting, kneeling, or similar. The amount of rise however does vary to some degree based on location, and some isolated areas (like Baffin Bay) are even expected to get a drop (about 5% of the worlds' oceans). The northeastern US and northeastern Canada are projected to get a particularly large rise, so a statue there could be in a more upright position or built to a larger scale - the waters off of New York are projected to rise a median value of 0,3 meters in just the 2081-2100 period alone. New York's 2100 RCP8,5 range is about 0,5 to 1,2m - adjusting to 2116 would put it at 0,6-1,5m (on top of the pedestal of course, which would be about 1,3 meters tall).

      RCP8,5 is of course the "business as usual" line... which has been the best bet thusfar. The "if we make huge efforts" RCP2,6 prediction is about half of the RCP8,5 predictions. There could be some other object on each statue to denote the RCP2,6 line.

      --
      I hate to bring up our imminent arrest during your crazy time, but we gotta move.
    10. Re:Refugees? Not so much. by Penguinisto · · Score: 1

      So... if you were to plant one on the Oregon Coast, you'd end up with a 6' tall base and a 1' tall statue atop that.

      This of course does not count what it would take to anchor the whole shebang to bedrock so that tidal erosion doesn't knock it over and bury it.

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    11. Re:Refugees? Not so much. by Rei · · Score: 1

      See this. Oregon's prediction is about average, so the RCP8,5 would be about 2-4 feet tall (a normal-sized person sitting, kneeling, or somesuch), with some other indicator for the RCP2,6 at about half that. And yes, the pedestal in that location would be larger than in a location like NYC.

      --
      I hate to bring up our imminent arrest during your crazy time, but we gotta move.
    12. Re:Refugees? Not so much. by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 2

      Huh? It says right in the summary: "Moody's family eventually moved to Springdale to live with him and work for Tyson and other poultry companies based in Arkansas". Is "working for Tyson" slang for "running from climate change" that I've never heard of?

      I fear I've read the article, so I'd better turn in my slashdot card. But here goes. And nothing in particular about your post - it was just a handy place for me to chime in.

      As they note the first "relocator" was a Mr Moody - hey, wasn't on a lot of Lucille Ball TV shows? But I digress.

      So why would a lot of Marshall Islanders want to leave their tropical paradise? Turns out there were a lot of problems where they lived - And here's why in 1979 it all started.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... We done went and made their home uninhabitable. We relocated them to other islands, but there wasn't enough resources for them to sustain life. Then we tried relocating them back to Bikini Island, but it turned out that while there were resources there, the food they grew was radioactive.

      So now we can get an understanding of why and when. And in 1979, it wasn't AGW that spurred the initial migration, it was radioactivity - we'd pretty much rendered their original home uninhabitable.

      Today? On Islands that are around 10 feet or less in altitude above sea level, it doesn't take a 10 foot rise to make them uninhabitable, just a combination of tides and storms happening at the right time. You might have some pretty palm trees most of the time, but the people who lived there have all drowned.

      So despite Slashdotters getting their entire info from a summary and filling in the details with their preconceptions and opinions, the story is: In the 1940's the US went on an explodey rampage, and really bitched up the Marshall Islander's home.

      They relocated them. Didn't work out. Unsustainable

      They brought them back. Didn't work out. Radioactive food. We even tried capping the nasty stuff http://www.theguardian.com/wor...

      So in the late 70's the relocation started. Then it was getting out of a mess we created. Now it very well can be a combination of a marginal location that is become vulnerable.

      I'm going to get a rash of tl;dr's no doubt. But there's the story.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    13. Re: Refugees? Not so much. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's certainly how the ancestors of most black residents got here.

    14. Re: Refugees? Not so much. by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      It has already happened. Parts of their islands flooded, and the sea level is rising and floods becoming more common, along with extreme weather events. FTA elaborates that change is now seen as inevitable, and eventually enough people will be forced to move that there won't be a viable economy or society left for the rest and they will all have to move.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    15. Re: Refugees? Not so much. by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      The actual sea level data shows little if any increases. It's a nice sinusoidal function that tracks a 24 year period. The ONLY way you can get that data to show sea level rise issues is with a linear regression and a terrible R^2 of 0.11 (meaning - you're trying to fit essentially random data with a straight line). The sea level isn't changing.

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    16. Re: Refugees? Not so much. by riverat1 · · Score: 1

      That tide gauge wasn't installed until 1993. I found one for Kwajalein Atoll that's been there since 1947. It does show sea level rise of around 6 inches. There are several big dips in the sea level that appear to correspond to El Nino years when the winds push water toward the Eastern Pacific.

  5. We should all follow their example by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They live in a place that has NEVER flooded until the seventies.

    They have always lived close to nature. The only stuff they ever got from the outside world was delivered in EU approved energy efficient sustainable energy wooden boats rowed by people who did not need to eat much. And when they moved to the mainland they rowed there in EU approved energy efficient sustainable energy bullshit wooden boats. Their carbon footprint is exactly zero. It is all the fault of the rich people. Nobody except for the rich people have ever had any advantage from the things that are messing up the environment.

    Of course, the rich people blame it on China or India or Africa.

    It is utter arrogance to point the finger when all of us are guilty of this.

    1. Re:We should all follow their example by khallow · · Score: 1

      They live in a place that has NEVER flooded until the seventies.

      Yea, right. They just never had a place they could leave to until the 70s.

  6. Hang on a minute here... TYSON FOODS? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They are worried about the environment so they go to work for a company FAMOUS for getting exemptions from the FDA clean food and drug act from the Clinton administration. Who is responsible for toxic dumping in rivers? What the stink?

    http://www.naturalnews.com/045788_Tyson_Foods_pollution_toxic_chemicals.html

  7. Must be all in their heads by fredrated · · Score: 1

    since we all know there is no such thing as AGW. I understand the Tuamotus are being abandoned as well.

  8. "AGW refugees" my ass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    For more than three decades, Marshallese have moved in the thousands to the landlocked Ozark Mountains for better education, jobs and health care. ...

    Suddenly, they're now "AGW refugees".

    Yeah, sure.

    I guess rewriting the past isn't limited to "correcting" temperature readings.

    1. Re:"AGW refugees" my ass by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Of course not. Nobody is fleeing from climate. They're just fleeing from the flood and their islands going under.

      Fleeing from a climate, how silly a concept.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    2. Re:"AGW refugees" my ass by tompaulco · · Score: 1

      They are retroactive AGW refugees. They actually moved for different reasons, but it is one that doesn't politicize as well as AGW and bring in those precious, precious ad dollars.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    3. Re:"AGW refugees" my ass by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      They're 6 feet above sea level and apparently the sea has risen by 2 meters suddenly and driven them off the island.

    4. Re:"AGW refugees" my ass by tompaulco · · Score: 1

      Of course not. Nobody is fleeing from climate. They're just fleeing from the flood and their islands going under.

      Fleeing from a climate, how silly a concept.

      At the present rate, their island will go under in about 500 years, so they can probably take their time fleeing. But that is okay because they have been "fleeing AGW" for decades before anyone even knew that there was AGW going on. In fact, they started fleeing back when the coming ice age was the current scary disaster.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    5. Re:"AGW refugees" my ass by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      My guess would rather be that they neither heard about the ice age scare nor the global warming craze, but they simply saw that water is coming, that floods are getting more numerous and that it's safer to pack up and GTFO.

      Some people don't need no statistics to know when to flee some place. Wet feet are more convincing than any amount of statistics.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    6. Re:"AGW refugees" my ass by tompaulco · · Score: 1

      My guess would rather be that they neither heard about the ice age scare nor the global warming craze, but they simply saw that water is coming, that floods are getting more numerous and that it's safer to pack up and GTFO.

      Some people don't need no statistics to know when to flee some place. Wet feet are more convincing than any amount of statistics.

      At 6 feet above seal level, how can you even tell floods are more numerous? High tide is over 5 feet. At least once a month, you are going to get flood even if there is no significant weather.
      They started fleeing the encroaching waters back in the 1970s when the sea level was still dropping.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    7. Re:"AGW refugees" my ass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      There's only one thing to do then. Buy a little farm, get a sheep and a cow, and breed horses.

    8. Re:"AGW refugees" my ass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's only one thing to do then. Buy a little farm, get a sheep and a cow, and breed horses.

      I'm just a city slicker, but I'm pretty sure you can't breed horses from sheep and cows.

  9. Wood figurines at Wal-Mart by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Courtesy of the Marshall Islands expats. Nice. Thanks, Sam. Thanks, Hugh.

  10. Moving to Marshall, Arkansas? by retroworks · · Score: 2

    The Searcy County seat town of Marshall, Arkansas in the Ozarks has been suffering from an exodus of youth during the past few decades. My parents are retired there and complain that there are not enough young people to take care of the aging population. I take this as a sign of divine Providence... warming could be an act of God intended to care for my retired parents.

    --
    Gently reply
    1. Re:Moving to Marshall, Arkansas? by superdana · · Score: 2

      So you're saying God is destroying island nations, threatening food, water, and energy supplies, and potentially causing the extinction of huge numbers of species so your parents can be comfortable? I have a robust spirituality so I'm not about to challenge a belief in God, but that is bananas.

    2. Re:Moving to Marshall, Arkansas? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Eh, I know people whose solution to the problem of evil is that starving kids in Africa, people displaced by natural disasters, and basically anyone doing or affected by anything evil are not actually people. Instead, they are divine beings who are either acting like they are having bad things happen to them or starving or are other divine beings who do the short term evil so greater good comes about.

      An example of the former is the random bum who asks for money. That is an opportunity to give directly to the poor, give to God at the same time and a reminder to be charitable.

      An example of the last one would be a sociopath I had for a boss. Rather than being told he had good reasons, was just selfish, or just completely unable to understand how he affected others, I was told that he was a human-looking test put there by God for some greater good. Furthermore, God would remove him as an obstacle, once I figured out what the plan was for me.

      And to cut off this question at the pass, no that wasn't used as an excuse not to help others, but actually seemed to reinforce it. Because the thinking was such giving, even though they knew it wasn't needed because of the way God set up the world, is actually even more meaningful. Additionally, because they are divine beings, you are literally giving the money to God. So charity is seen as giving until it hurts and giving to God, just as the Bible commands.

    3. Re:Moving to Marshall, Arkansas? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it's a joke

    4. Re:Moving to Marshall, Arkansas? by Jack+Griffin · · Score: 1

      Well God takes time out from killing babies in Africa to ensure some American sportsman wins a sports title, so really anything is possible.

  11. First, AGW came for the Marshall Islands... by rmdingler · · Score: 2
    but I was not Marshallese, so I didn't get involved.

    Whether you believe in God or climate change, and I'm not certain why the two are typically mutually exclusive, it has to occur to you that change is inevitable. Tangible evidence exists that the World's weather is different now, and it doesn't take a wild leap of imagination to infer that eight billion humans probably have something to do with it.

    The sacrifice required now to right the ship is minimal compared to what it will become in a decade... and past a certain tipping point, there will be no remedy. Buy some land where it's presently very cold.

    --
    Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

    Ernest Hemingway

    1. Re:First, AGW came for the Marshall Islands... by cbeaudry · · Score: 1

      I can see you have found the Koolaid and have drunk pretty heavily from it.

    2. Re:First, AGW came for the Marshall Islands... by NostalgiaForInfinity · · Score: 0

      The sacrifice required now to right the ship is minimal compared to what it will become in a decade

      Science doesn't support the notion that spending money on preventing climate change is worth it, and no serious policy proposal attempts to achieve that.

    3. Re:First, AGW came for the Marshall Islands... by khallow · · Score: 1

      Whether you believe in God or climate change, and I'm not certain why the two are typically mutually exclusive, it has to occur to you that change is inevitable. Tangible evidence exists that the World's weather is different now, and it doesn't take a wild leap of imagination to infer that eight billion humans probably have something to do with it.

      The sacrifice required now to right the ship is minimal compared to what it will become in a decade... and past a certain tipping point, there will be no remedy. Buy some land where it's presently very cold.

      The only simple solution is to kill a bunch of people. Nothing else "solves" overpopulation in a simple way. And if the chicken littles are correct, then it'll be much easier to solve that problem in ten years.

    4. Re:First, AGW came for the Marshall Islands... by rmdingler · · Score: 1

      To be fair, it was the only thing spiked at the entire party.

      --
      Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

      Ernest Hemingway

    5. Re:First, AGW came for the Marshall Islands... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whether you believe in God or climate change, and I'm not certain why the two are typically mutually exclusive, it has to occur to you that change is inevitable. Tangible evidence exists that the World's weather is different now, and it doesn't take a wild leap of imagination to infer that eight billion humans probably have something to do with it.

      The sacrifice required now to right the ship is minimal compared to what it will become in a decade... and past a certain tipping point, there will be no remedy. Buy some land where it's presently very cold.

      The only simple solution is to kill a bunch of people. Nothing else "solves" overpopulation in a simple way. And if the chicken littles are correct, then it'll be much easier to solve that problem in ten years.

      Have you considered running for the Republican presidential nomination? You could beat Trump with ideas like that!

    6. Re:First, AGW came for the Marshall Islands... by Howitzer86 · · Score: 2

      "If you know what's good for you, if you know that they're leftists, you won't believe anything they say any time, anywhere, about anything ... So we have no the Four Corners of Deceit, and the two universes in which we live. The Universe of Lies, the Universe of Reality, and the Four Corners of Deceit: Government, academia, science, and media. Those institutions are now corrupt and exist by virtue of deceit." - Rush Limbaugh

      The program must be pretty simple:

      • If it's said by someone belonging to the party you disagree with politically, it is a lie.
      • If it's said by someone belonging to the party you agree with, it is the truth.
      • If it's from an organization composed mostly of people who vote for the opposition party, it is a conspiracy.
      • If it's from an organization composed mostly of people who vote for your party, it is gospel.

      If the Republican Party agreed with the scientific community from the outset... or if most climate scientists were Republican to begin with, you'd believe in global warming. Though with the new questions of conservative purity going around, I'm not sure how long the scientists in this example could be considered true Republicans...

      It brings to mind the terms revolutionary and counterevolutionary... from within a Communist country. Of course, you'll never agree with a counterrevolutionary, they always lie.

      What I'd like to know, is how people get sucked into that mode of thinking to begin with, because by those rules everyone inside of it had to have an open mind at one point before deciding to close it, and once inside, since you trust them emphatically, they outline the necessary coding to keep you in.

      Maybe it's fear, uncertainty, doubt... tools used by cultists like The Peoples Temple (origin of the Koolaid phrase). And what does that koolaid do? It kills them. It seals their fate, just as ignoring global warming science seals ours. At least in a cult the damage stays within the compound.

      "Don't look out the window at the hurricane approaching. Work to prevent anyone else from sheltering from it. We're all safe so long as you do exactly what I tell you and listen to no one else."

      Even if we act and do all we can to hold back global warming trends, it'll continue for some time before it gets better. What we're trying to avoid is a mass extinction event. Warming's already happening. Only the willfully ignorant have trouble seeing that.

      So who's drinking what? Who's the suicide cult here?

    7. Re:First, AGW came for the Marshall Islands... by rmdingler · · Score: 1
      There are cases throughout history (and likely beyond) illustrating a particular species without natural enemies that has multiplied beyond sustainability.

      The humans have proven to be particularly resilient and resourceful, but the rather near future requires more environment in which to expand, or a whittling of the population to achieve some balance.

      --
      Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

      Ernest Hemingway

    8. Re:First, AGW came for the Marshall Islands... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Educate yourself and cut the cult programming while you still have time!

      http://climatehustle.com/

      http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/

    9. Re: First, AGW came for the Marshall Islands... by cbeaudry · · Score: 1

      I believe you are the one talking about the end of human kind, not I.

      This makes it pretty clear who is associated with "koolaid".

      With extraordinary claims, must come extraordinary evidence. And the evidence for your claims is in fact less than ordinary.

    10. Re:First, AGW came for the Marshall Islands... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The only simple solution is to kill a bunch of people. Nothing else "solves" overpopulation in a simple way.

      The act of killing, or violence in general, is simple. Using killing as a solution is actually pretty complicated. You gotta figure out who to kill, when to kill them, how to kill them, how to clean up/cover up, what to do with the possessions of the deceased, how to deal with the repercussions coming from their friends and allies, etc.

      This is why individuals resorting to violence as a solution rarely gets far, whereas when people collude and organize, violence gives them much better results.

      A thug can mug people a few times but then he gets caught or maybe a good guy with a gun shoots him in self defense

      A bunch of thugs banding together can form a mafia, and those tend to survive and even thrive a lot better.

      And of course at the top you have government, who can very well make their own violence "legal"

    11. Re: First, AGW came for the Marshall Islands... by Howitzer86 · · Score: 1

      Of course I don't expect you to believe me. That might require you to suffer an existential crisis by this point. I've read your comment history, it's all you talk about.

      As for evidence, it's extensive enough that we have the military, food and drug production companies, insurance companies, and oil companies (who were among the first to realize it) all making plans for a warmer, more hostile world and broken ecosystem. Suggesting that all of this is just part of a conspiracy by climate snake oil salesmen is the greater claim with the least support.

    12. Re: First, AGW came for the Marshall Islands... by cbeaudry · · Score: 1

      I do comment on this subject extensively, because I care, and I sincerely feel the world has been played on this subject.

      Evidence abounds of bad science and bad journalism (no investigation). From A to Z the whole subject is filled with propaganda, spin and alarmism.

      Everything organisation you mentioned benefits from this. The Military is the government and if they declare this a national security issue they will get extra funding. The insurance companies will increase premiums and reduce claim payments, food and agriculture lives on subsidies.

      The fund announced by Bill Gates and all comes with strings attached, public money and allot of it, is required. This fund will be for profit. The companies this fund will pay to do works, aren't going to be doing it as non profits.

      How you cannot see this is mind boggling.

      Show me the proof that this is a runaway problem, that it is caused by us and not natural variability, that we are seeing it Now, which we aren't. Data shows there has been no increase in extreme weather, that sea level rise has been chuging along at 3mm per yearvsince thé last ice Ãge, that glaciers go up and down amd this year are on a recovery path from the latest downturn.

        Please show me some actual data that shows we should spend trillions.

      Have you ever taken the time to research that research how much mitigation all that money is "planned" to give us? It's on the order of 0.05C over 50-100 years.

      Even the solution to the non problem is flawed.

    13. Re:First, AGW came for the Marshall Islands... by Areyoukiddingme · · Score: 1

      ...and the Four Corners of Deceit: Government, academia, science, and media.

      And I bet he said that without a trace of irony. While being a media personality...

    14. Re:First, AGW came for the Marshall Islands... by khallow · · Score: 1

      Using killing as a solution is actually pretty complicated.

      I don't see that actually. If one looks at the massacres and genocides of the past, they were complex, but relatively easy and quick to pull off as long as the other side were completely overpowered.

    15. Re:First, AGW came for the Marshall Islands... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But it isn't over population that is causing this, it is greed. The planet could support up to 40 billion humans if we lived just for our needs, but only 2 billion people that indulge like the typical American. But capitalism is on the war path and I can't see us reigning that in, we need to keep buying that material junk and excessive food porn to fill the metaphysical voids that the advertisements tell us it fills.

    16. Re:First, AGW came for the Marshall Islands... by khallow · · Score: 1

      But it isn't over population that is causing this, it is greed. The planet could support up to 40 billion humans if we lived just for our needs, but only 2 billion people that indulge like the typical American.

      40 billion is not even an order of magnitude greater than present population. Meanwhile if we dropped an order of magnitude in population, we would be under your "typical American" threshold by a factor of 2. In other words, the global warming problem goes away if you reduce population permanently by an order of magnitude even in the presence of so-called "greed".

      And who really wants to live in a world where you live for your needs? It's not a viable endstate.

    17. Re: First, AGW came for the Marshall Islands... by Howitzer86 · · Score: 1

      I don't have any graphs plotted by lone-wolf indie climatologists to show you, but if I did, I'd have to prove to you that they weren't funded under the table by our evil government or maybe just misguided. Maybe I'll get lucky one day though. I guess this will have to do:

      http://climate.nasa.gov/eviden...
      https://www.skepticalscience.c...

      Summary:
      CO2 levels are rising and it's our fault.
      CO2 traps heat.
      The planet is accumulating heat, especially in the oceans.
      This causes bleaching in our dying coral reefs, hurting the ecosystem.
      Hot oceans means bigger storms (in opposition to climate skeptic Dr. Matt Briggs claim tonight on Michael Savage).
      Strong storms and rising seas erode islands and continental coasts.
      Immigrants from these areas are an increasing issue because of that erosion and additional sea level rise(this article).

      I believe that for you, this isn't about science, but about ideology. Savage for instance is calling us all Lysenkoists (I'm listening to it now), which is the biggest, most direct psychological projection I've heard yet out of the mouth of a so-called "conservative". I think people like him are more like communists they realize.

      My first introduction to this concept was in the early 1990s, as a child when I first read Cosmos by Carl Sagan. He explained why Venus was the way it was, how its hotter than Mercury despite being further from the sun, and how we are at risk to succumbing to something similar because of our carbon output. The book was published in 1980. I'd learn this again later in elementary school.

      Exxon knew about the subject and did their own research confirming it in 1981. This research factored into their decision making. http://www.theguardian.com/env...

      Meanwhile, a caller to Savage's show explains how these cycles are normal and that the ice caps melted and caused the Biblical flood... suppose we should just let it happen then. GOD WILLS IT!

      Your folks would get more respect if they were consistent, but commitment to the concept of no climate change seems to be waning. I just think the point is that your side wants us confused and divided over it long enough for the people you (knowingly or unknowingly) work for to get away with pollution as long as possible. I enjoy watching the slippage over time, but it is irritating to know the only thing in the way of meaningful action is a bunch of impressionable folks duped into the doing dirty work for a doomed industry.

    18. Re:First, AGW came for the Marshall Islands... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't see that actually. If one looks at the massacres and genocides of the past, they were complex, but relatively easy and quick to pull off

      That's what I said. Pulling off a genocide is just "using the tool" of killing. Ensuring that said genocide actually solves your problem is complicated.

      It's worth noting that most massacres and genocides aren't conducted to solve "overpopulation". Overpopulation is the problem of having too many people, but most massacres are about killing the "wrong type" of people (wrong skin color, wrong gender, wrong religion, wrong social class, etc)

      And massacres kill these "wrong type" of people in the name of creating a better society. That is the supposed problem - society sucks, so killing these people would make it better.

      But of course society is rarely better off from the massacre. That's why I say having a massacre work as a solution is hard.

      as long as the other side were completely overpowered.

      Well, that's not an easy condition to fulfill. It's partly why we don't have that many massacres and genocides in the grand scheme of things.

    19. Re:First, AGW came for the Marshall Islands... by khallow · · Score: 1

      Ensuring that said genocide actually solves your problem is complicated.

      Everything is complicated on this scale. But some things are far less complicated. For example, the US and Russia could work together to eliminate 90% of the world's population in oh, a couple of hours by nuking developing world population centers. The complexity has already been paid through by development of a nuclear weapons infrastructure.

      They also probably have bioweapons (with vaccines) that they could use to kill off people on that scale. Again, it's complexity that is mostly paid for.

      It's worth noting that most massacres and genocides aren't conducted to solve "overpopulation". Overpopulation is the problem of having too many people, but most massacres are about killing the "wrong type" of people (wrong skin color, wrong gender, wrong religion, wrong social class, etc)

      Why would that matter? Even if it remains true, there are plenty of wrong people out there.

      Finally, who really thinks that killing off 90% of the human population is somehow going to be harder than growing the population to 10 or 11 billion while trying to aggressively mitigate global warming and giving a better than current developed world standard of living to most of the world? Given how messed up current AGW mitigation efforts have been, I don't see this latest unicorn delivery system being as simple as advertised.

  12. Welfare shoppers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It wouldn't be that these worthless people will take any excuse to come to Arkansas because the welfare is better? Send the all home. Climate change hysterics are malevolent.

  13. Regardless of any sea rising problems, free reign to come live and work in the US is a boon to any 3rd world nation, and many will take advantage of it.

    --
    (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
  14. Were these islands safe in the first place? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Forgetting Earth's warming for a moment, shouldn't naturally-occurring tsunamis wipe the place regularly anyway? It seems reckless to settle barely above sea-level somewhere surrounded by a huge ocean and somehow expect that water-level fluctuations will never exceed 0.05% of the average depth of the oceans.

  15. putting this into perspective by NostalgiaForInfinity · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The per-capita GDP of the Marshall Islands is $2900, very low by world standards, and it has never been a lot better. Arkansas's per capita GDP, by comparison, is $31000. That alone is ample incentive for moving. That is, even a backwater, poor state like Arkansas is still a lot better that the Marshall Islands. While Westerners have some idyllic notions of island paradise, atolls have always been risky and marginal places to live; people moved there because they didn't have any other options, and these nations have always experienced large net emigration as soon as people actually had opportunities to emigrate. In addition, many of these atolls simply are not permanent, but they are temporary features that appear and disappear over thousands of years, quite naturally, regardless of human activity.

    Also, to put this issue into perspective, all island nations of Melanesia, Micronesia, and Polynesia together make up less than 3 million people, who have always lived under impoverished conditions and always been at high risk from natural disasters. Even if global warming were to displace all of them, that would be comparable to the number displaced by a single major hydroelectric plant, like China's Three River Gorges dam.

    At this point, the discussion is also academic because sea levels are going to continue to rise, no matter what policies we adopt, so we better find places to accommodate these people. Given that places like Europe have big demographic problems, Europeans should welcome these populations with open arms. Of course, America would also benefit from their presence and I'm glad they are settling here.

    1. Re:putting this into perspective by CaptainLard · · Score: 1

      Melanesia, Micronesia, and Polynesia together make up less than 3 million people, who have always lived under impoverished conditions and always been at high risk from natural disasters. Even if global warming were to displace all of them....

      The problem with global warming is its not localized to atolls in the south pacific. 40% of all humans live within 100km of a coastline.

    2. Re:putting this into perspective by NostalgiaForInfinity · · Score: 1

      The problem with global warming is its not localized to atolls in the south pacific. 40% of all humans live within 100km of a coastline.

      Well, since you are changing the subject, you apparently concur as far as the Marshall Islands go.

      Now, what about those 40% that live within 100km of a coast line? They are in an entirely different situation than pacific islanders. Pacific island nations are susceptible to sea level rise because their entire nations are within a few meters of sea level and because their entire nation is built on (geologically) temporary islands. Few other countries are in that situation. So for people in those other countries, even if sea level rise causes a gradual loss of coastal lands, populations will just shift slightly inland. That process is so slow that most people won't even notice; mostly, old homes will simply not get rebuilt in the same spot. Of course, many coastal areas on continents are formed from sediments and have been shifting around since long before climate change; in addition, many may actually gain area due to climate change.

  16. At least they came here legally by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    So they're welcome in my book.

  17. More Propaganda by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    These are not "climate change refugees". These are people that moved for greater economic opportunity. They choose Springdale because there is an established community of of countrymen. This provides a level of familiarity and comfort, as well as connections that could get them jobs.

    JOBS is why there is a growing community of Marshalese in Srpingdale. Climate change is completely ancillary to the matter, except when you have an agenda to propagandize, such as advancing the AGW drumbeat or baiting readers.

  18. People build houses on the sides of volcanoes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    People build houses on cliffs at the sea shore. People build houses on flood plains. People build houses downwind from sand dune deserts. People build in all kinds of precarious places, and that's not a good enough reason to ask for help or even just consideration from billions of people in order to slightly raise the chance that these doomed settlements may exist a little longer. You built on sand and you have a place where you can go. Be glad the end of your birthplace doesn't come in the form of molten rock flowing through your bedroom.

  19. India vs. the Marshall Islands by Kohath · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Why should 1 Billion people in India give up on affordable energy and all the improvements it brings to their lives just so a few thousand people can live comfortably in the Marshall Islands?

    1. Re:India vs. the Marshall Islands by NostalgiaForInfinity · · Score: 1

      China certainly thinks that it is worth displacing more than 1.5 million people for a single hydroelectric dam.

    2. Re:India vs. the Marshall Islands by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

      It won't be just for a few thousand people in the Marshall Islands, it will be for themselves too. Their country and their lives are at severe risk from climate change. They are basically betting that they can develop fast enough to mitigate a lot of the problems, by industrializing and building defences before millions of them die.

      Anyway, it's not really on most of them to fix it. It's on us in the west, and those in the far east to develop clean energy so that it is cheaper than coal anyway, at which point they will switch to it. We are already well on the way, we just need to speed the process up.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    3. Re:India vs. the Marshall Islands by Kohath · · Score: 0

      ... before millions of them die.

      Die from what?

    4. Re:India vs. the Marshall Islands by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Die from what?

      Flooding, crop failure, land being made unusable, extreme weather, changing economics that they are unable to adapt to quickly enough. Wars over resources, extreme poverty as tens or hundreds of millions of people migrate within the country.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    5. Re:India vs. the Marshall Islands by LordWabbit2 · · Score: 1

      China certainly thinks that it is worth displacing more than 1.5 million people for a single hydroelectric dam.
      It's a big ass dam dude, it's 5 times the size of the Hoover dam and stretches for over 600 kilometers.
      Oh, and the figure I read was 1.6 million displaced, but the article was a bit old.

      --
      There are three kinds of falsehood: the first is a 'fib,' the second is a downright lie, and the third is statistics.
    6. Re:India vs. the Marshall Islands by chihowa · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Anyway, it's not really on most of them to fix it. It's on us in the west, and those in the far east to develop clean energy so that it is cheaper than coal anyway, at which point they will switch to it. We are already well on the way, we just need to speed the process up.

      I apologize for being indelicate, but that line of thinking is complete bullshit. The people of India and the Far East are not some sort of subhuman animals who can't be held accountable for their actions and it's not on the West to take responsibility for fixing everybody else's problems. I absolutely abhor PC finger-wagging, but that is some of the most bigoted tripe I've read today, even if it was couched in platitudes for our Western saviors.

      --
      If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
    7. Re:India vs. the Marshall Islands by Kohath · · Score: 2

      Flooding, crop failure, land being made unusable, extreme weather, changing economics that they are unable to adapt to quickly enough.

      People who live in the western world don't die by the millions (or even the thousands) from flooding or crop failure or extreme weather. If cheap energy allows India to begin to prosper like it has allowed the west to prosper, then India can expect to begin to achieve the resiliency that westerners have in the face of bad weather.

      If India is deprived of their opportunity for progress, they can expect to remain as much at risk from bad weather as they've always been.

      Wars over resources

      Why would there be wars over resources when fossil fuels are cheap? What resources? The water that's "flooding" them?

       

      extreme poverty as tens or hundreds of millions of people migrate within the country.

      Because they've never had a poverty problem? Because people never migrated in the past? But cheap energy and an improved lifestyle will cause extreme poverty.

      Do you think people in India will believe this story? Unless the Indian people believe it completely, it's clearly not in their interest to go along with it. You might want to fill in the details for them.

    8. Re:India vs. the Marshall Islands by Greystripe · · Score: 1

      Old age.

    9. Re:India vs. the Marshall Islands by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Why should 1 Billion people in India give up on affordable energy and all the improvements it brings to their lives

      Look at the map. There is a neighbouring place called Bangladesh, that was once part of the british colonial empire of India. There some 170 million people live at or very close to sea level in the massive river delta (the topmost elevation is about 12m/15yd) and it's one of the places on Earth with absolute poverty. The global climate change could erase all the little fragile economic progress they have made in the recent decade or so. If the ocean comes up just a knee-lenght, dozens of millions of those people will be displaced without any chance of return. Those people have nothing to lose. How do you propose to handle the problem, nuke them all so the white race can continue to live in wasteful luxury?

      BTW "affordable energy" is a code-word for coal and crude oil in the libertarian worldview. The visibility in chinese cities is about 2 meters (7ft) nowadays and people are falling dead by the scores, due to cardio-pulmonary diseases. Essentially the brown coal dust gets into their lungs, blocks the pores and then infiltrates the blood and kills heart tissue from inside. Few chinese city people live to see their 55th birthdays, despite the mongoloid race being genetically well pre-disposed for longevity, which is also supported by their more sensible eating habits.

      Do we really want to turn India into a chinese copycat a.k.a.victorian era steam-punk apocalypse? I think the hindi have more sense than to desire or even accept such a future. Less material wealth, but more spiritual value and more tolerance is their way of life.

    10. Re:India vs. the Marshall Islands by Kohath · · Score: 1

      Do we really want to turn India into a chinese copycat a.k.a.victorian era steam-punk apocalypse? I think the hindi have more sense than to desire or even accept such a future. Less material wealth, but more spiritual value and more tolerance is their way of life.

      China has almost 5x the per capita GDP as India ($8280 vs. $1688). Would the average person want his income to go up by 5x?

      Maybe he'd settle for 3x for a while if there's no smog. But being poorer than China doesn't seem to be helping the air quality.

    11. Re:India vs. the Marshall Islands by AmiMoJo · · Score: 0

      The people of India and the Far East are not some sort of subhuman animals who can't be held accountable for their actions and it's not on the West to take responsibility for fixing everybody else's problems. I absolutely abhor PC finger-wagging, but that is some of the most bigoted tripe I've read today, even if it was couched in platitudes for our Western saviors.

      Sorry, that's complete bullshit. If it wasn't clear, I never even implied that some people are "subhuman animals", quite the opposite in fact.

      The west generated a lot of pollution when it industrialized, and benefited greatly from it. It would be unfair and bigoted to suggest that India now accept the extra burden of having to develop cleaner technology too. In any case we can't stop them, they are mining vast quantities of coal and building many, many new coal power stations.

      In other words, I expect them to be just like us. Our equals in being short sighted and cheap.

      We have a moral responsibility to take the benefit we gained from industrializing the dirty way, and using it to develop a cleaner way of living so that everyone can have our quality of life. It's as much for us as it is for them, because if we don't they will just do what we did and then everyone will be screwed.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    12. Re:India vs. the Marshall Islands by NostalgiaForInfinity · · Score: 1

      It's a big ass dam dude, it's 5 times the size of the Hoover dam and stretches for over 600 kilometers.

      The Three Gorges Dam generates about 10GW and displaced upwards of 1.5 million people. Total world energy generation from fossil fuels is about 10TW. So, if you accept the displacement of at least 1.5 million people for the Three Gorges Dam, you should be willing to accept the displacement of at least 1.5 billion people for fossil fuel consumption, right?

      Oh, and the figure I read was 1.6 million displaced, but the article was a bit old.

      Hence my statement of more than 1.5 million. In fact, it's probably several million, but Chinese propaganda likes to play it down.

    13. Re:India vs. the Marshall Islands by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      People who live in the western world don't die by the millions (or even the thousands) from flooding or crop failure or extreme weather. If cheap energy allows India to begin to prosper like it has allowed the west to prosper, then India can expect to begin to achieve the resiliency that westerners have in the face of bad weather.

      Right, that's exactly what I just said. Their hope is that they can reach that level before climate change becomes too severe, but if they can't they are screwed.

      If India is deprived of their opportunity for progress, they can expect to remain as much at risk from bad weather as they've always been.

      Who is suggesting denying them progress? Not I, I'm saying we need to make progress cleaner, not stop it.

      Why would there be wars over resources when fossil fuels are cheap? What resources? The water that's "flooding" them?

      Because you can't eat coal. You can't drink sea water or untreated river water full of fossil derived pollutants. A diesel tractor isn't going to help if your farm is under 1m of salt water.

      Because they've never had a poverty problem? Because people never migrated in the past? But cheap energy and an improved lifestyle will cause extreme poverty.

      Because when parts of the country become uninhabitable people will be forced to migrate in large numbers. Isn't that obvious? Why do you think lots of people are leaving Syria right now, did they get a brochure in the mail advertising the glamorous European lifestyle or did they leave when making a long and dangerous journey away from their homes was the only option?

      Indians will industrialize using whatever the cheapest technology is, like we did. They will be short sighted about it, like we were. The only way to prevent this disaster is to make clean energy cheaper than dirty energy, which has the added benefit of accelerating the rise out of poverty for a couple of billion people.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    14. Re:India vs. the Marshall Islands by CaptainLard · · Score: 1

      it's not on the West to take responsibility for fixing everybody else's problems.

      Too bad the west has never followed that mantra. If we hadn't been stirring the pot in the middle east for 70 years maybe we'd have an extra few $Trillion to develop renewable and nuclear energy making this whole issue a moot point. (yeah yeah, we had to fight the red menace and all but making oil worthless also might have bankrupted the soviets)

    15. Re:India vs. the Marshall Islands by Kohath · · Score: 1

      Because you can't eat coal. You can't drink sea water or untreated river water full of fossil derived pollutants. A diesel tractor isn't going to help if your farm is under 1m of salt water.

      You can use fossil fuel to mechanize and automate farming. You can use coal to generate electricity to pump water up hill to irrigate crops. You can use electricity to clean river water to make it safe to drink. You can use diesel equipment to create dams and walls for flood-control.

      Because when parts of the country become uninhabitable people will be forced to migrate in large numbers. Isn't that obvious? Why do you think lots of people are leaving Syria right now, did they get a brochure in the mail advertising the glamorous European lifestyle or did they leave when making a long and dangerous journey away from their homes was the only option?

      Has the Syrian migration caused millions to die? Has it caused "extreme poverty"? Is a gradual increase in sea level over the course of a century a bigger problem for the people affected than ISIS?

      Indians will industrialize using whatever the cheapest technology is, like we did.

      And they should. Regardless of whether it's bad of the Marshal Islands.

    16. Re:India vs. the Marshall Islands by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If we hadn't been stirring the pot in the middle east for 70 years maybe we'd have an extra few $Trillion to develop ...

      ... to give away to non-workers in exchange for votes to keep their benefactors in power.

    17. Re:India vs. the Marshall Islands by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      You can use fossil fuel to mechanize and automate farming. You can use coal to generate electricity to pump water up hill to irrigate crops. You can use electricity to clean river water to make it safe to drink. You can use diesel equipment to create dams and walls for flood-control.

      Yes, and that, as I already stated twice now, is the plan. Better hope they can do it fast enough. Better hope that their neighbours can do it fast enough as well so they don't start getting huge numbers of refugees. Better hope that it isn't too severe to cope with (because developed countries never flood, right?)

      And they should. Regardless of whether it's bad of the Marshal Islands.

      Then logically we should attack India to prevent the climate change they will cause harming us or costing us money.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    18. Re:India vs. the Marshall Islands by cbeaudry · · Score: 1

      The benefits to society AND health in the long term from cheap energy far outweigh the negatives.

      You seriously need to rethink your premise.

      Technology and research is well on its way to solving these issues without handicapping society with unfair and unnecessary economic burdens.

      While your at it, please move out of the way of Nuclear and let us use it to power humanity and its growing needs for energy.

    19. Re:India vs. the Marshall Islands by Kohath · · Score: 1

      Then logically we should attack India to prevent the climate change they will cause harming us or costing us money.

      Or we could just not worry about it.

    20. Re:India vs. the Marshall Islands by quantaman · · Score: 1

      Anyway, it's not really on most of them to fix it. It's on us in the west, and those in the far east to develop clean energy so that it is cheaper than coal anyway, at which point they will switch to it. We are already well on the way, we just need to speed the process up.

      I apologize for being indelicate, but that line of thinking is complete bullshit. The people of India and the Far East are not some sort of subhuman animals who can't be held accountable for their actions and it's not on the West to take responsibility for fixing everybody else's problems. I absolutely abhor PC finger-wagging, but that is some of the most bigoted tripe I've read today, even if it was couched in platitudes for our Western saviors.

      Except it's mostly our actions that created the problem of global warming, it's us who have most benefited from all the industrialization that caused global warming, and as a result of that industrialization it's us who have the most wealth and technological skill to mitigate global warming.

      Yes India and the Far East will bear the brunt of the problem, but it's really our mess and we should take responsibility for fixing it.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    21. Re:India vs. the Marshall Islands by tempest69 · · Score: 1

      It's a big ass dam dude, it's 5 times the size of the Hoover dam and stretches for over 600 kilometers.

      The Three Gorges Dam generates about 10GW and displaced upwards of 1.5 million people. Total world energy generation from fossil fuels is about 10TW. So, if you accept the displacement of at least 1.5 million people for the Three Gorges Dam, you should be willing to accept the displacement of at least 1.5 billion people for fossil fuel consumption, right?

      Oh, and the figure I read was 1.6 million displaced, but the article was a bit old.

      Hence my statement of more than 1.5 million. In fact, it's probably several million, but Chinese propaganda likes to play it down.

      For 10 TW of clean power I think that displacing 1.5 billion people is a damn bargain.

    22. Re:India vs. the Marshall Islands by sudon't · · Score: 1

      India has a seacoast, too.

      --
      -- sudon't

      Air-ride Equipped

    23. Re:India vs. the Marshall Islands by NostalgiaForInfinity · · Score: 1

      For 10 TW of clean power I think that displacing 1.5 billion people is a damn bargain.

      The Three Gorges Damn also wreaked environmental havoc. And it's not sustainable power either.

      But thanks for showing your true colors: when people push climate change legislation, they really don't care about the environment or human suffering, it's all about a political agenda.

  20. SIX feet above Sea Level?? by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

    Damn, wish my house was that high up...

    Note that New Orleans is below Sea Level.

    --

    "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    1. Re:SIX feet above Sea Level?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My house in Florida is 6 feet above sea level, I have salt water in my back yard. I hear that the sea level was 300 feet lower when the first humans moved to Florida about 12,000 years ago. I'd guess the seas will continue to rise but I'm not moving to Arkansas.

    2. Re:SIX feet above Sea Level?? by Kohath · · Score: 1

      Obviously you should move to Arkansas.

    3. Re:SIX feet above Sea Level?? by Kohath · · Score: 1

      You should abandon your Florida property and move. As a favor to you, I will buy your doomed house in Florida for $2000. Get out while you still can.

    4. Re:SIX feet above Sea Level?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My house is 250 miles away from the ocean and sits 3000ft high. I'd be sipping my latte while I watch the world drowning. Cheers!

      * Yeah, it's lonely at the top.

  21. Not climate change by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Marshallese have moved in the thousands to the landlocked Ozark Mountains for better education, jobs and health care"

    Um yeah, they didn't move there because of "climate change". They came for the jobs (jerbs).

  22. More propaganda by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Earth's topography is evolving all the time. Remember Pangea?

  23. Why can't they provide their own... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... "better education, jobs and health care"?

    Not enough WHITE people on the Marshall Islands to provide it?

  24. Self-inflicted flooding by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A recent satellite image based analysis showed that the less populated Marshalls are stable in size or growing. The more populated islands suffer from shoreside construction of seawalls that exacerbates erosion and flooding

  25. Repubs hate P.I.s by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    what is the proper racial slur to use for Marshallese ?

    1. Re:Repubs hate P.I.s by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      what is the proper racial slur to use for Marshallese ?

      They love America so much the entire nation is moving here - there is no slur for that. Hawaiians on the other hand..

    2. Re:Repubs hate P.I.s by Bartles · · Score: 1

      Oh, I see. This entire thread pretty much rips on Arkansas and the Ozarks, but as soon as someone rips on on an inner city, it's racist.

  26. Wait - 1970's wasn't that global cooling time? by pecosdave · · Score: 0

    Seems like there would be an opposite effect in the 70's if we're supposed to be worried about heating flooding the earth, shouldn't cooling have the opposite effect? There's quite a few news stories on it and what do you know - they even say the same thing the zealots are saying now! We're going to have to give up our freedom over it!

    --
    The preceding post was not a Slashvertisement.
    1. Re:Wait - 1970's wasn't that global cooling time? by Ixpath · · Score: 1

      Smog was a big problem in the 70s. Smog blocks out sunlight and causes cooling. Laws were passed and it was dealt with in the most places. Now we are talking about greenhouse gases which are a different thing. Please pay attention.

    2. Re:Wait - 1970's wasn't that global cooling time? by pecosdave · · Score: 1

      Oh trust me. I've paid really close attention.

      --
      The preceding post was not a Slashvertisement.
  27. ancient #FloridaMan by Thud457 · · Score: 1

    he first humans moved to Florida about 12,000 years ago

    And they're still clogging up I-95 driving 40 miles an hour with their left-turn blinker on.

    --

    the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

  28. The real story... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The real story is that these people are "economic refugees", not "climate refugees". They came for the jobs, education, and health care. They didn't come because of AGW, even though that makes a good excuse.

  29. It's strories like this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...that make me have major concerns about the data we are being spoon fed. This is a very obvious propaganda, and very thinly veiled. Is it to create strife and keep the anti-AWG and the AWG fighting just to keep them distracted from other more important things? This is so thinly veiled and obvious tripe that's all I can think of; click-bait to keep you focused on the Circus (of bread and circus), to keep you Divided (of divide and conquer).

  30. No, Not Climate Change by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They are not migrating because of climate change. They are migrating at a chance of a better life. They are coming from an extremely small island nation with nil GDP and a poor ineffective infrastructure. They are using climate change to get some serious dough from the US. And people are leaving to a better place.

  31. Per capita GDP in the Marshall Islands is $2900, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You don't need much money when you live in paradise.

  32. Bullshit. by Charcharodon · · Score: 1
    I grew up near the Mississippi and watched the idiots get flooded out every year or two. Sure every once in a while it would come up to records in terms of human memories, the giant bluffs near the river attest to the water being much further inland, but it wasn't the water coming up that was causing all the "flooding" it was the people moving closer to the river.

    I'm sure the Marshall Islands are no different. More people, which means more people (especially poor people) will be trying to live near the water or in areas that are cheap (due to flooding maybe?). We saw the same nonsense in New Orleans with people living 10-15 feet below the water level behind substandard dikes.

    The water has been doing what the water does for thousands of years, but now there are more people in the way and somehow that makes it Global Warming. What a crock of shit. They aren't coming here because the water level moved up 1/16 of an inch. Those people want the better standard of living, jobs, and social programs....period end of story.

    1. Re:Bullshit. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Um, yeah, so we should just discount thousands of scientists all over the world telling us that the sea levels are rising which, by the way, is obvious to anyone who has spent more than 20 years near the sea.

    2. Re:Bullshit. by cbeaudry · · Score: 1

      Science says, 3mm per year since the last ice age and no sign of acceleration.

      So your "perceptions" are irrelevant.

      Fearmongering from the media is irrelevant.

      Stop trying to make use redistribute money into the pockets of the elite by pretending its about spending money on the poor.
      There is NO problem to fix. Stop inventing problems.

    3. Re:Bullshit. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Science says, 3mm per year since the last ice age and no sign of acceleration." Citation needed, otherwise it is 'me says'.

    4. Re:Bullshit. by Charcharodon · · Score: 1
      There are billions of people on the planet. I could find a few thousand scientists that claim that they are pretty, pretty ponies or anything else.

      So yes I can easily discount what all the scare mongers are saying especially since I've been on this planet for more than 20 years and keep seeing the same con being rehashed over and over again.

      "Oh no look bad thing X is going to happen! If you act now and give us lots and lots of money and power it wont."

  33. Egpyt was the first victim by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Egypt used to be much wetter and more hospitable. However due to the rampant man made climate change in 2000 BCE, Egyptians were forced to move and take up the banner of radical Islam. On one hand I want to blame the Egyptians for creating global warming. On the other hand, Egyptians are not canonically referred to as being 'white' by the main stream media, and therefor get a pass on any sins the may have committed either through omission (not building enough solar plants) or commission through rampant construction of fossil burning power plants cleverly disguised as pyramids.

    Sometimes I think mainstream media is just trolling us. Really the stories are just too stupid to be believed. People should just ignore mainstream press. Everything coming out of that outlet is either wrong, hyperbolized to the extent that it might as well be wrong, exaggerated, slanted, and biased to garner the most views and create the most discontent and malaise amongst the general pop as possible. People have from time immortal been migrating to find better climate and grazing lands. Shit is not new. What is new is a class of peoples making shit tons of $$$ of this migration and creating division and hatred in the process. The Media is the lowest of the low. Even worse than drug dealers.

    Stop supporting the drug dealers and media elite. Stop creating and responding to stories such as this. You can learn more from watching Sponge Bob for 1 hour than you can learn from watching 24 hrs of CNN or Fox.

  34. More climate change BS by Rich_Lather · · Score: 0

    What makes AGW, AKA Climate Change less believable is all the BS non-causal effects attributed to it by politicians and the media. Refugees can blame the weather all they want, but money and lifestyle are their true motivations.

  35. fallout - the gift that keeps giving by Thud457 · · Score: 1

    We A-bombed THE FUCK outta their islands, and kicked them off others.[*]

    They better damn well love America!


    [*] still better than they probably could've expected at the hands of the Japanese...

    --

    the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

  36. Climate DOGMA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Here is the climate dogma: If 100,000 or more Spanish-speaking immigrants come to Arkansas for work, it's NOT A PROBLEM.
    But, if 10,000 English-speaking immigrants come to Arkansas from the Marshall Islands, it's a BIG PROBLEM.

  37. Coren22's impersonation "APKolypse" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Coren22 IMPERSONATES RESPECTED MEMBERS OF THE SECURITY COMMUNITY http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

    ---

    "privilege escalation's a bad thing" - by Coren22 on Tuesday September 22, 2015

    How else programmatically update it?

    "requires elevation to write hosts" - by Coren22 (1625475) on Wednesday September 23, 2015

    Hypocrite later admits it - hosts do vs. WFP/SFP not my ware. Users set it not programmatic impersonation. Security wares need it.

    ---

    "secretary at MalwareBytes took a look at his source code & said it looked all good" - by Coren22 (1625475) on Wednesday November 18, 2015

    Mr. Steven Burn of Malwarebytes

    "yes I've seen the code & yes it is safe." FROM http://forum.hosts-file.net/vi...

    ---

    "we should avoid your crap it looks like malware." - by Coren22 (1625475) on Monday November 02, 2015 @03:52PM (#50850445)

    60++ reputable sources say different:

    64-bit model https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

    +

    32-bit model https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

    &

    Installer-> http://f.virscan.org/APKHostsF...

    MalwareBytes' hpHosts Admin (MalwareBytes employee) hosts & recommends it -> http://hosts-file.net/?s=Downl...

    ---

    "MiTM... his software provides" - by Coren22 (1625475) on Wednesday November 18, 2015

    Hardcoded favs users provide = REVERSE DNS verified & my ware filters 5,500++ false positives - security site hosts data = false positives filtered.

    ---

    "Apk doesn't think DNS servers are worth running & believes Microsoft Active Directory can run w/out DNS." - by Coren22 (1625475) on Tuesday October 27, 2015

    Show us where I say it? Not illogic logic but where I say it. I say AD needs internal DNS far back as 2007

    http://forums.tweaktown.com/wi...

    See "To warn users who have ActiveDirectory/AD LAN-WAN setups to NOT use external DNS servers" there.

    APK

    P.S.=>

    "modding you down for trolling in your signature" - by Dog-Cow (21281) on Wednesday November 25, 2015

    Dog-Cow's (old acc't. no new sockpuppet from you) thoughts of your signatures about me

    ... apk

  38. Coren22's impersonation "APKolypse" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Coren22 IMPERSONATES RESPECTED MEMBERS OF THE SECURITY COMMUNITY http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

    ---

    "privilege escalation's a bad thing" - by Coren22 on Tuesday September 22, 2015

    How else programmatically update it?

    "requires elevation to write hosts" - by Coren22 (1625475) on Wednesday September 23, 2015

    Hypocrite later admits it - hosts do vs. WFP/SFP not my ware. Users set it not programmatic impersonation. Security wares need it.

    ---

    "secretary at MalwareBytes took a look at his source code & said it looked all good" - by Coren22 (1625475) on Wednesday November 18, 2015

    Mr. Steven Burn of Malwarebytes

    "yes I've seen the code & yes it is safe." FROM http://forum.hosts-file.net/vi...

    ---

    "we should avoid your crap it looks like malware." - by Coren22 (1625475) on Monday November 02, 2015 @03:52PM (#50850445)

    60++ reputable sources say different:

    64-bit model https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

    +

    32-bit model https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

    &

    Installer-> http://f.virscan.org/APKHostsF...

    MalwareBytes' hpHosts Admin (MalwareBytes employee) hosts & recommends it -> http://hosts-file.net/?s=Downl...

    ---

    "MiTM... his software provides" - by Coren22 (1625475) on Wednesday November 18, 2015

    Hardcoded favs users provide = REVERSE DNS verified & my ware filters 5,500++ false positives - security site hosts data = false positives filtered.

    ---

    "Apk doesn't think DNS servers are worth running & believes Microsoft Active Directory can run w/out DNS." - by Coren22 (1625475) on Tuesday October 27, 2015

    Show us where I say it? Not illogic logic but where I say it. I say AD needs internal DNS far back as 2007

    http://forums.tweaktown.com/wi...

    See "To warn users who have ActiveDirectory/AD LAN-WAN setups to NOT use external DNS servers" there.

    APK

    P.S.=>

    "modding you down for trolling in your signature" - by Dog-Cow (21281) on Wednesday November 25, 2015

    Dog-Cow's (old acc't. no new sockpuppet from you) thoughts of your signatures about me

    ... apk

  39. You must be fairly convinced AGW is real then by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you're only willing to buy the property for cents on the dollar, you can't really be expecting to win on the deal because AGW will make the property worthless.

    Go on, be a REAL man and put your money where your mouth is and offer full price for it. It's what the place is worth (else it would not be the full price), so you get property that will increase in value as years pass by. Unless AGW turns it into a submerged swamp. You must be fairly convinced that is likely if you're only going to offer two grand for it.

  40. No, it wasn't. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But you're too dumb to take in the explanation that it wasn't, so I'm not repeating what you refuse to listen to for the thousandth time.

    1. Re:No, it wasn't. by pecosdave · · Score: 1

      If we don't call out the obvious hypocrisy by making smart-assed comments the oppressors win.

      BTW, the science is settled. Then it was again. Oh then they changed it and settled it again.....

      Yes it's climate change.

      Yes it's always happened.

      No it's different now.

      --
      The preceding post was not a Slashvertisement.
  41. HUH? by NetNed · · Score: 1

    So are we supposed to ignore that the Marshall Islands get 160+ inches of rain a year with most falling from May to November??? Logic would tell you that it getting heavy rains and being near sea level would lend itself to flooding. Add to that tides are a result of the gravitational pull of the moon and the sun, which can only happen a maximum of twice a month, so the "more frequent" claim is utter rubbish. Is climate change changing gravity now too??? Australia has monitors all over down there and the data is available quite easily. Those show some pretty common numbers when charted with no great rise like has been claimed.

    1. Re:HUH? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So are we supposed to ignore that the Marshall Islands get 160+ inches of rain a year with most falling from May to November??? Logic would tell you that it getting heavy rains and being near sea level would lend itself to flooding. Add to that tides are a result of the gravitational pull of the moon and the sun, which can only happen a maximum of twice a month, so the "more frequent" claim is utter rubbish. Is climate change changing gravity now too??? Australia has monitors all over down there and the data is available quite easily. Those show some pretty common numbers when charted with no great rise like has been claimed.

      Perhaps you are not aware that the Marshall Islands are not a fort with a 100' high watertight wall surrounding it? And that rain, falling from the sky, flows tot he sea. Floods happen when there is stuff in the way between the place the rain falls and the sea and the water gets concentrated in bottlenecks. Bottlenecks like the thousand miles of the Mississippi that is a drainage basin for a million square mile zone. The marshall islands are what, 1km across, 10 the other way? 160" can fall in a day and there will be nothing but shallow puddles left of that rain since it can all drain easily.

      But you don't really care - you're more worried about dah terroists hitting your local DQ in Fucksville, Nowhere, or that someone might be using a condom, or gays might hold hands or a darkie might move onto your street..

    2. Re:HUH? by NetNed · · Score: 1

      You know what genius? When you have a high tide and you get a massive down pour, where do you think that rain is going to go? In to the ocean that is already at it's highest level? Hey, but resort back to your Pavlovian, knee jerk response and claim I'm a homophobic racist christian because debate of how tides work and Australia's measurements isn't debatable. Thanks for reinforcing the level of stupidity one can find on slashdot

    3. Re:HUH? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know what genius? When you have a high tide and you get a massive down pour, where do you think that rain is going to go? In to the ocean that is already at it's highest level?

      Yes, because the ocean doesn't float in (and then sink) a barrier wall around an island. If you put a bucket of water on top of a stool, then pour another bucket of water on top of the first bucket, does the water levitate above the rim where you live? Because around here, it flows to the lowest point... then spreads out.

      Hey, but resort back to your Pavlovian, knee jerk response and claim I'm a homophobic racist christian because debate of how tides work and Australia's measurements isn't debatable. Thanks for reinforcing the level of stupidity one can find on slashdot

      Not everyone in the NBA is 6'4+ and black, but if someone is in the NBA, that's a decent estimate of height and race. So I didn't claim you were "a homophobic racist christian because debate of how tides work", but your belief that water miraculously levitates around a tiny island chain island instead of dispersing into the million square miles of ocean as science and empirical tests show is strong predictor of those traits. Your doubling down on ignorance suggests you are a Trump/Carson supporter too. Maybe the Marshall islands should build a big wall of pyramids to store all that rain :p

      Oh and "gay marriage" doesn't have to be about homophobia, but your leap to that as the only conclusion suggests you may have some latent homosexual urges you repress.

    4. Re:HUH? by Jack+Griffin · · Score: 1

      You know what genius? When you have a high tide and you get a massive down pour, where do you think that rain is going to go? In to the ocean that is already at it's highest level?

      You think that a little rain makes sea levels rise?

    5. Re:HUH? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know what genius? When you have a high tide and you get a massive down pour, where do you think that rain is going to go? In to the ocean that is already at it's highest level?

      You think that a little rain makes sea levels rise?

      Nutter NetNed thinks the heavier salt water is a wall that traps the fresh water like an impermeable wall. Check out his post history. Looks like a nutter who rotates farm/sock puppet accounts.

    6. Re:HUH? by NetNed · · Score: 1

      Hey, I'd check your point history but since you are a little bitch that post as an anonymous coward I can't.


      Thanks again for proving your level of stupidity. It's real simple. When TIDES are HIGH, if MORE WATER is ADDED to the system, IT'S GOING TO FLOOD till the TIDE rescinds. When you have an island nation that all rose out of the ocean, things like that happen. I posted a link to a Nat Geo article say pretty much what I said. So you know more about it then the National Geographic reporter that studied it with scientists? I think I'll stick to those that are actually respected in the field and not a label-er who feels the need to resort to casting his homophobic fears on to others because his debate isn't really there.


      Hey! Here is a link that says exactly what I said, go fucking figure? So where is all your links at? I guess they are "anonymous"!

    7. Re:HUH? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey, I'd check your point history but since you are a little bitch that post as an anonymous coward I can't.

        Thanks again for proving your level of stupidity. It's real simple. When TIDES are HIGH, if MORE WATER is ADDED to the system, IT'S GOING TO FLOOD till the TIDE rescinds. When you have an island nation that all rose out of the ocean, things like that happen. I posted a link to a Nat Geo article say pretty much what I said. So you know more about it then the National Geographic reporter that studied it with scientists? I think I'll stick to those that are actually respected in the field and not a label-er who feels the need to resort to casting his homophobic fears on to others because his debate isn't really there.

      Hey! Here is a link that says exactly what I said, go fucking figure? So where is all your links at? I guess they are "anonymous"!

      If by "pretty much" you mean "exactly the opposite, sure. Otherwise, rage much? Your "link" talks about coastal flooding due to storm surge from a hurricane. As in the hurricane's winds are driving waves up onto the coast:
      "The coastal flooding is occurring despite Hurricane Joaquin tracking well away from the East Coast.

      Where these winds are blowing onshore, they're piling ocean water into the coastline, resulting in coastal flooding. Those same winds are also whipping up high surf on top of the high water, causing waves to break on sections of beach not typically affected by waves or tides during quiet weather."

      COASTAL FLOODING has little to do with your '160" ' of rain red herring above, so you disproved your own non-point. But that's probably just because science is used by godless heathens as a tool of the great serpent to waylay the true believers - good Christians like you who can do no evil, admit no mistake and watch no major news other than Fox. Good Christian Republicans, none of whom voted for Bush Jr. to hear them tell it in 2011. Rage on nutter ned, rage on...

      Back on topic, the Marshall islands are being flooded due to rising sea levels. No recorded amount of rain can cause an inundation of a tiny sandbar strip of land like that - it's simply too narrow with no bottlenecks to the ocean to backup and flood. I've been on sand bars and islands like that - there's simply no place that's more than a couple hundred yards from the sea, much less the miles it would take (absent a dam wall) to trap a high volume of water.

      In short, you are wrong and you are dumb. Let's see if you are obstinate and refuse to admit you are wrong, perhaps with a dash of moving the goalposts to redefine what you said into something less demonstrably wrong - that's a classic Trump voter tactic for the advanced class once "Nuh UNH!" is mastered.

      If, like Fonzie, you can't admit you are ruh ruh ruh wrong, just don't reply - that's concession enough.

  42. Coren22 burns in shame, lol... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The MASSIVE FUCKUP of yours here, lol -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p... that even IF I miss a lookup (sub 4% of the time ONLY for me due to hardcoded favorites in hosts @ the TOP of it cached in RAM locally)? Adblocking gains me back lookup speeds if a total miss & I have to hit DNS remotely.

    (Purely, I suspect, due to your LIMITED MENTALLY DAMAGED GOOD ASSBURGERS BRAIN being only able to hold 1 of MANY variable factors in play @ a time (like adblocking WITH hardcoded favorites acting in combination, & ONLY SUB 4% of the TIME for me stupid!))

    Single machine here only & how I use remote filtering DNS compliments hosts & hosts it, perfectly -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

    APK

    P.S.=> LOL, it's hilarious - see subject: Is that what you "ASSBURGERS RETARDS" do when cornered? Yes, obviously... apk

  43. Stupid asses that wrote this by NetNed · · Score: 1

    Are apparently ignoring this. Must not pay as much to consider that 80% of the islands are growing.

  44. 80% of Pacific Islands stable or growing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hmmmm.. according to researchers using satellite data, 80% of Pacific Islands are stable or growing, and 20% shrinking.

    Some of the ones shrinking are shrinking due to other anthropogenic causes - shoreside construction that leads
    to erosion and flooding.

    http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2015/02/150213-tuvalu-sopoaga-kench-kiribati-maldives-cyclone-marshall-islands/

  45. Coren22: Tell us of "Bolting on 'MoAr'", lol by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    YOU BLEW IT BADLY HERE especially -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

    See subject & my last post you replied to Coren22: BIND doesn't come w/ Windows, the most used OS there is by the most folks on the desktop!

    (LMAO - I own you... YOU, have been DOMINATED!)

    APK

    P.S.=> You're efficiency is poor - Less IS truly MORE in using what you already have (hosts + firewalls) as I do, & to do more with less... apk

  46. Coren22: Tell us of "Bolting on 'MoAr'", lol by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    YOU BLEW IT BADLY HERE especially -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

    See subject & my last post you replied to Coren22: BIND doesn't come w/ Windows, the most used OS there is by the most folks on the desktop!

    (LMAO - I own you... YOU, have been DOMINATED!)

    APK

    P.S.=> You're efficiency is poor - Less IS truly MORE in using what you already have (hosts + firewalls) as I do, & to do more with less... apk

  47. Coren22: Tell us of "Bolting on 'MoAr'", lol by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    YOU BLEW IT BADLY HERE especially -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

    See subject & my last post you replied to Coren22: BIND doesn't come w/ Windows, the most used OS there is by the most folks on the desktop!

    (LMAO - I own you... YOU, have been DOMINATED!)

    APK

    P.S.=> You're efficiency is poor - Less IS truly MORE in using what you already have (hosts + firewalls) as I do, & to do more with less... apk

  48. Coren22: Educate us on "Bolting on 'MoAr'", lol by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    YOU BLEW IT BADLY HERE especially -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

    See subject & my last post you replied to Coren22: BIND doesn't come w/ Windows, the most used OS there is by the most folks on the desktop!

    (LMAO - I own you... YOU, have been DOMINATED!)

    APK

    P.S.=> You're efficiency is poor - Less IS truly MORE in using what you already have (hosts + firewalls) as I do, & to do more with less... apk

  49. Polynesian Islands not sinking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The fact is that 75% of these small island nations are GAINING land surface. It is widely thought that global warming with rising seas will eventually sink these islands with some putting the dates within our lifetimes. NO. Not happening and not going to happen. If you read the actual facts islands grow or shrink on a lot of factors which sea level rise is one of the smaller factors. Most islands are GROWING not shrinking. Frequently storms leave additional sand or coral. You can see this in data from all the islands. The fact is that living on these islands which are a couple feet above sea level is highly problematic given the huge storms that happen frequently. Even if they were to RISE a few feet it is not uncommon to have 10 foot waves or larger that cause flooding. We are talking 7" of sea level rise maybe by the end of the century - maybe. The facts are that tide guages all over the world see far less than the 2-3mm/year that scientists claim. The average of tide guages is 1.4mm/year or 3-4 inches by end of century. In fact there are many reasons why land is sinking not related to global warming. Subsidence of feet per century is very common in some areas where a lot of water or oil is being extracted from the ground. The simple idea that sea levels are governed by temperature is not true. This is very complicated stuff that the activists don't want you to know.