Slashdot Mirror


Rising Seas Give Island Nation a Stark Choice: Relocate or Elevate (nationalgeographic.com)

Climate change means the low-lying Marshall Islands must consider drastic measures, including building new artificial islands. National Geographic: The navigational prowess of Marshall Islanders is legendary. For thousands of years, Marshallese have embraced their watery environment, building a culture on more than 1,200 islands scattered across 750,000 square miles of ocean. But powerful tropical cyclones, damaged reefs and fisheries, worsening droughts, and sea-level rise threaten the coral reef atolls of this large ocean state, forcing the Marshallese to navigate a new reality.

In a moment of reckoning, Marshall Islanders face a stark choice: relocate or elevate. One idea being considered is the construction of a new island or raising an existing one. With 600 billion tons of melting ice flowing into oceans that are absorbing heat twice as fast as 18 years ago, the Marshallese will need to move fast. A report published by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in October highlighted different projected outcomes from a temperature rise of 1.5C versus 2C.

In the report, small-island developing states are identified as being at disproportionately higher risk of adverse consequences of global warming. Among them, four atoll nations: Kiribati, Tuvalu, the Maldives, and the Marshall Islands, are at greatest risk. [...] In July, speaking at a climate change conference on Majuro, capital of the Marshall Islands, University of Hawaii climate scientist Chip Fletcher discussed possible adaptation measures. When Fletcher presented a map depicting Majuro flooded under three feet of water, there was an audible gasp in the room. For climate activists in the Pacific, "1.5 to stay alive," has been the mantra of survival. "We're going to miss 1.5C," Fletcher told his audience, but added, "there's something we can do about it."

243 comments

  1. old story by helllllllloooo · · Score: 2

    I am pretty sure this was decided a long time ago - I read tons of articles about it

    1. Re: old story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes I understood that they were all going to the US at some point.

    2. Re: old story by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 5, Informative

      Yes I understood that they were all going to the US at some point.

      Mostly yes. But for different reasons. The "sea level rise" may be a problem someday, but for now sea levels are rising about 4mm per year, which may be a lot after a century, but is not even noticeable so far.

      Several of their islands are contaminated with radiation from US testing, and they have a high birth rate, so the "clean" islands are getting crowded. Marshallese have a right to immigrate to America, and many of them have done so. Many settled in Arkansas, where they work growing chickens for Tyson. There is also a large group of Marshallese on the Big Island of Hawaii, where they tend to be resented by the locals for working too hard.

    3. Re:old story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      But my President has told me that Climate Change is a hoax.

    4. Re:old story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But my President has told me that Climate Change is a hoax.

      It's all Trumps fault!

    5. Re:old story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      These articles were retracted. What *really* happened, was Gilligan kept moving the stick the Professor was using to measure the tide, and it set all this global warming scare into gear.

      They're fine.

    6. Re: old story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Mostly yes. But for different reasons. The "sea level rise" may be a problem someday, but for now sea levels are rising about 4mm per year, which may be a lot after a century, but is not even noticeable so far.

      It might be a bit more serious than that.
      Rising sea levels means that land that haven't been exposed to the sea that much will get a taste of it.
      While a 4 mm rise only eats away 1-2 inches of you typical beach (about 5-10 degree slope) at first it might mean that more of the sand is pulled away to the sea each year.
      20 years and you might have a full yard of land that previously wasn't used to getting exposed to waves.

    7. Re: old story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yep ... a coupl'a coconut bonbons gonna get wet toes. In 50 years. Nothing to see here folks, but Trotsky-slut warmist propaganda.

    8. Re:old story by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      No the sea level is going to rise. Any minute now. Any. Minute. Look look! Here it comes. Oh wait, no. But still, any minute...

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    9. Re: old story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A century is not that long of a time when you're talking about your entire nation being submerged.

    10. Re: old story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Many of them also relocate to Oklahoma. Growing up with them as a child I found that they refuse to learn and are simply passed through the school system to get rid of them instead of holding them back. They also are not known for working very hard, or at all in some cases, because the US government gives them and all of their children money for life for ruining their islands. I am sure that some are successful and moving in the right direction, but in general I remember them being lazy, unintelligent slobs. Just my experience, so take it as you will.

    11. Re:old story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No the sea level is going to rise. Any minute now. Any. Minute. Look look! Here it comes. Oh wait, no. But still, any minute...

      I will worry about it when Al Gore sells his ocean side house. Magically the water level has not risen there.

    12. Re: old story by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      but is not even noticeable so far.

      Except where the difference causes erosion of natural barriers and proceeds to utterly devastate areas as a result.

      Science Bomb!

  2. China will rescue them. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    China has the best expertise in redeveloping low lying islands. They will help and gain military bases as part of their string of pearls if no one else does.

    If not that it's about time we see if we can support populations living self sustainably on aircraft carrier like ships.

    1. Re:China will rescue them. by kenwd0elq · · Score: 5, Informative

      Actually, China isn't "re-developing low lying islands".. The Chinese are devastating and covering up living coral atolls by dredging in order to CREATE islands, in order to claim sovereignty over vast stretches of international water and to fortify those artificial islands to prevent or restrict commerce through the South China Sea. The Chinese don't care about islands; they care about dominance.

    2. Re:China will rescue them. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Lacist.

    3. Re:China will rescue them. by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      The Americans don't care about islands; they care about dominance.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    4. Re:China will rescue them. by Cmdln+Daco · · Score: 1

      What does your comment have to do with the discussion?

    5. Re:China will rescue them. by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      The Americans are the ones who bomb countries and invade neutral nations and cause death and destruction. Obama holds the world record for most children murdered by drones. He bombed a Doctors Without Borders hospital. Suddenly China are the bad guys now? Because they're taking the very rational step of trying to keep the Americans away from their territory? Huh?

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    6. Re: China will rescue them. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How did they try to do that exactly?

    7. Re:China will rescue them. by andydread · · Score: 0

      Well then,,, when Adolf, Qaddafi, DAESH and the like are slaughtering people in the most torturous and brutal ways don't come calling on the Americans/NATO countries to stop the slaughters and genocide with America's bombs ok?

    8. Re:China will rescue them. by skam240 · · Score: 0

      "The Americans are the ones who bomb countries and invade neutral nations and cause death and destruction."

      Other countries do this too. Russia or Saudi Arabia are great examples of this.

      " Obama holds the world record for most children murdered by drones."

      You mean the president who was in office when drone tech properly matured has a record set for drone tech? How insightful of you.

      I'm sure there are a number of presidents with higher child death counts (a far more reasonable metric) due to military actions such as Roosevelt, Nixon, or Johnson.

      "He bombed a Doctors Without Borders hospital."

      Oh, our president bombed them did he? I didn't think the secret service allowed our presidents to conduct such operations.

      "Suddenly China are the bad guys now?"

      Not suddenly at all. They lay claim to vast amounts of ocean territory that the rest of the international community recognizes as belonging to other countries or as international waters and have so for decades. The US on the other hand has not been in the habit of attempting to annex other countries territories for over 100 years now.

      In fact, China literally signed a treaty when joining the UN that recognizes the boarders they now claim are invalid.

      --
      I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
    9. Re:China will rescue them. by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      Whataboutism, whataboutism, he approved the operation so he's guilty and needs to stand trial for war crimes at The Hague and hang just like Halder and Keitel, attempted justification for American meddling thousands of miles from their territory. Seriously, who causes the most war deaths worldwide? It ain't China. Look in the mirror.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    10. Re:China will rescue them. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      China won't have to rescue them because China created the climate change hoax to damage the US economy.

    11. Re:China will rescue them. by cheekyboy · · Score: 0

      piss off, the americans have donated and helped most of the world out off shit ass British poverty.

      The Chineese owe USA for its existance after WW2, they got saved, same as Russia, they owe USA for existing too, else the Germans would have taken over.

      USA saved earth.

      --
      Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
    12. Re: China will rescue them. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yep, and they are also keeping the Philippines, Vietnam, Brunei, Malaysia and Taiwan away from THEIR territory too. Amazing how itâ(TM)s ok for the Chinese to unilaterally claim the whole South China Sea and still have people claim the US are the bad guys.

      Just because a significant portion of the worlds shipping goes thru there doesnt matter, right? Because those countries can stand up to China on their own - no help needed?

      Idiot.

    13. Re: China will rescue them. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So far? Tie between China and Russia for most war deaths historically. The US is far back from the totals they racked up.

    14. Re:China will rescue them. by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      The first comment in the thread concerned China's actions regarding certain small, low-lying islands. If you want to invite comparison with America's actions regarding such, that might be considered a legitimate point of discussion. But, no, you're not doing anything like that, you're trying to derail the conversation and force your completely unrelated agenda down our throats instead and it's not at all welcome. KGFY.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    15. Re:China will rescue them. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Zontar! Forget this foolishness!

      The life and death of drone targets and people on low-lying islands is of no importance. Only APK matters!

      Bow to him! Use your clout to promote his hosts file engine. Do it! Do it for righteousness, for honor, for integrity!

      There is no future without APK.

      ALL HAIL APK

    16. Re:China will rescue them. by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      The Soviet Union defeated Germany, thanks for playing though. Americans started more wars and overthrew democratically elected governments and replaced them with dictators. Iran, Guatemala, the list goes on. How many illegal wars is the USA engaged in right now?

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    17. Re: China will rescue them. by Type44Q · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Suddenly China are the bad guys now?

      It's not really about that but since you demand a simple answer... "Sure."

      Because they're taking the very rational step of trying to keep the Americans away from their territory?

      Lots of reasons but this 'expansionism' has nothing to do with "trying to keep the Americans away" and everything to do with the Chinese government eyeballing their neighbors' undersea resources.

      It's Tibet all over again.

    18. Re:China will rescue them. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Soviet Union defeated Germany

      LOL. You haven't actually read the history of WW2, have you?

      The SU "defeated" Germany in much the same way Russia "defeated" every invader that ever threatened it: lose horribly, retreat to Moscow, and wait for winter to set in. I'd hate to know what Russia *losing* would look like.

    19. Re:China will rescue them. by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      So how much living coral was killed by US nuclear testing?

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    20. Re:China will rescue them. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In the meantime America did what it always does. Do nothing while others do the grunt work then swoop in at the last minute and claim victory. El Alamein happened in 1941 - when the US hadn't even entered the war yet. Stalingrad happened at the end of 1942. The US had declared war on Germany but not participated in any major operation yet - the first was Operation Torch in 1943. So basically, WW2 in Europe was won before US troops even made it across to Europe.

      Oh and don't give me this lend lease saved the Soviet Union bullshit. It was a trickle, until 1943 - by which time the Soviets didn't really need it anymore, but they kept it anyway. Go ahead and look up the tonnages. I have.

      Americans ought to be very grateful that Britain held on by the skin of its teeth, and that Russia paid with a river of blood. Or they'd all be speaking German right now. And judging by what I see of American politics nowadays, they would have fit right in.

    21. Re:China will rescue them. by careysub · · Score: 1

      A really odd tack to take, complaining about "wahtaboutism" when this sub-thread exists entirely because of your own whataboutist post upthread, seeking to haul in unrelated "whatabouts".

      Disingenuous hypocrite much?

      --
      Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
    22. Re: China will rescue them. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe. But one thing is for certain: if the US had not entered the war, ALL of Europe would have ended under Stalin's heel. No wealthy western europe, no EU. Maybe those smug shits would have deserved it.

    23. Re:China will rescue them. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Obama holds the world record for most children murdered by drones.

      That's not fair to the rest of the world -- most just don't have the tech yet. Give it time and we'll lose our high score ($20 says it goes to the Middle East).

      Suddenly China are the bad guys now? Because they're taking the very rational step of trying to keep the Americans away from their territory? Huh?

      International waters are - check it out - international (damn I'm good). This has implications for things like, yup you guessed it, international law. As for who's the bad guy, ask China's neighbors what they think of it all.

    24. Re:China will rescue them. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whataboutism, whataboutism

      When you're comparing two things or people to find the best/worst, asking "what about X" is important, no?

      Seriously, who causes the most war deaths worldwide?

      WW2 killed the most people by far, and the Russians lost the most, so I suppose it's the Germans then.

      Since then, the largest war casualties have happened in Africa and the Middle East. Linky
      I apologize on the data's behalf for not supporting your assumption.

    25. Re:China will rescue them. by skam240 · · Score: 1

      This is the second time in a relatively short period you've tried to demonize Obama for decisions he had nothing to do with. The authorization for the military strike came from the local command structure in Afghanistan, not from Obama ( https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik... ) Do you really think the president of the United States is consulted every single time our arm forces shoot at something. That would be ridiculous.

      So my question to you is, do you make this stuff up your self or do you just gullibly believe everything you read on front right wing "news" sites?

      --
      I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
    26. Re:China will rescue them. by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      The Nuremberg Laws. Halder and Keitel hanged for the same war crimes. You can't claim ignorance.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    27. Re:China will rescue them. by skam240 · · Score: 1

      You're ridiculous. If Obama didn't directly authorize the action then he can't be held accountable for it anymore then a parent can't be held accountable for their grown childrens actions. Likewise, if a manager rapes a subordinate is the CEO in the wrong?

      Yes, something very fucked up happened and there are people who should have been punished very severely for it but once again, Obama had nothing to do with this.

      You really do just want to find fault in Obama don't you?

      --
      I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
    28. Re:China will rescue them. by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      Oh ho ho. I see you don't know the Nuremberg laws. Command responsibility, look it up. Obama's hands are drenched in the blood of innocents. He needs to stand trial in The Hague for war crimes. Perhaps he can claim ignorance and be acquitted. But the trial must certainly take place. That defense didn't work for the Nazis, but feel free to go ahead and try it.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    29. Re:China will rescue them. by skam240 · · Score: 1

      Right. This is what I get when I look up the Nuremberg laws as you have told me to do https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... , https://www.britannica.com/top...

      So laws forbidding Jews and German from marrying and just generally removing rights from Jews have something to do with this how?

      --
      I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
    30. Re:China will rescue them. by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1
      You're deliberately being obtuse. The Nuremberg trials after WW2. International tribunals where "I didn't know" was rejected as a defense. Go ahead and try though. I'm sure all those murder victims will understand.

      I'm just gonna leave this here: https://www.amnestyusa.org/is-...

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    31. Re:China will rescue them. by skam240 · · Score: 1

      I'm deliberately being obtuse? You consistently just make shit up on the fly and I'm being obtuse for calling you on it. How on fucking earth would the Nuremberg trails have resulted in "laws"?

      On top of that you link to a post about drone strikes that literally has nothing to do with what we're talking about.

      Your post is an intellectual mess that points to nothing but complete confusion.

      --
      I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
    32. Re:China will rescue them. by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      It's just frustrating how *uneducated* you are and how requiring you to understand something results in you deliberately misunderstanding.

      Fine, yes, I was talking about the Nuremberg principles, not the Nuremberg laws. The two are so easily confused that the Wikipedia page has a disambiguation page attached. Now that I look, the Nuremberg laws page has a disambiguation notice directing you to the Nuremberg principles about war crimes, which you deliberately ignored. You really didn't see it there and click over? An intelligent person would have done so. Here's the part where Obama will be convicted in a war crimes tribunal:

      Principle III The fact that a person who committed an act which constitutes a crime under international law, acted as Head of State or responsible government official, does not relieve him from responsibility under international law.

      Principle VI The crimes hereinafter set out are punishable as crimes under international law:
      (a) Crimes against peace and humanity:
      (i) Planning, preparation, initiation or a plan of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances;
      (ii) Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the acts mentioned under (i).
      (b) War crimes:
      Violations of the laws or customs of war which include, but are not limited to, murder, ill-treatment or deportation to slave labor or for any other purpose of civilian population of or in occupied territory; murder or ill-treatment of prisoners of war or persons on the Seas, killing of hostages, plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns, or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity.
      (c) Crimes against humanity:
      Murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation and other inhumane acts done against any civilian population, or persecutions on political, racial, or religious grounds, when such acts are done or such persecutions are carried on in execution of or in connection with any crime against peace or any war crime.

      So yeah, under any just system of international justice, Obama must be tried for war crimes. Principle III means he can't say "durrr I didn't know" because he was the commander-in-chief. I am astonished you are not familiar with these principles as they form the foundation of international human rights laws. Moreover command responsibilty means he can't dodge prosecution. Since you are incapable of your own research, I have done it for you: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      The United States of America confirmed and incorporated the mentioned 1899 and 1907 Hague Conventions on "command responsibility" into United States federal law through the precedent set by the United States Supreme Court (called the "Yamashita standard") in the case of Japanese General Tomoyuki Yamashita. He was prosecuted in 1945 for atrocities committed by troops under his command in the Philippines, in the Pacific Theater during World War II. Yamashita was charged with "unlawfully disregarding and failing to discharge his duty as a commander to control the acts of members of his command by permitting them to commit war crimes."

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    33. Re:China will rescue them. by Cmdln+Daco · · Score: 1

      Wow. The 'whatabout the americans' dude surfaces several layers down in the thread to claim.... hmmm....

    34. Re: China will rescue them. by Cmdln+Daco · · Score: 1

      To be fair, in China and Russia's cases, it wasn't really 'war deaths' in the traditional sense. They killed mostly their own peoples. And they did so long after the 'civil war' that established their Communist parties were over. After consolidating power.

      What a nasty way to use State power. The US seldom acts in anywhere near as nasty a fashion.

    35. Re:China will rescue them. by skam240 · · Score: 1

      Nice. Not just making shit up for once.

      Sadly you haven't been reading my posts so for at least a third time now, Obama did not authorize the strikes so there is nothing to punish him for. He literally had no role in the bombing of the hospital. The only people who can be held responsible for what happened using the laws that you list are the officers who did in fact authorize the strike, who were local in Afghanistan.

      Once again for you in all caps OBAMA DID NOT AUTHORIZE THE STRIKE AGAINST THAT HOSPITAL IN AFGHANISTAN.

      --
      I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
    36. Re: China will rescue them. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nice whataboutism, dipshit.

    37. Re:China will rescue them. by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Because they're taking the very rational step of trying to keep the Americans away from their territory? Huh?

      I'm glad you followed that sentence with "Huh?" It's an incredible display of self realisation that you have no frigging idea what you're talking about.

      Even when shitting on America it's important to remind people, NOT EVERYTHING IS ABOUT AMERICA.

    38. Re:China will rescue them. by skam240 · · Score: 1

      I also feel the need to question you on this.

      "Fine, yes, I was talking about the Nuremberg principles, not the Nuremberg laws."

      So according to you, you were asking for Obama to be prosecuted under the Nuremberg "principles". How exactly does that work?

      See, either they're "laws" and Obama can be prosecuted for violating them, or they're "principles" and he can't. In other words, your explanation is as meaningless as your initial statement.

      Please keep in mind my core point that Obama did not authorize a thing still stands, I'm just exploring how absurd your covering for an already absurd statement was.

      --
      I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
    39. Re:China will rescue them. by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      Doesn't matter. He's commander-in-chief and cannot dodge responsibility for what happened on his watch. Yamashita went to the gallows for the exact same crime - failing to stop men under his command from committing war crimes.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    40. Re:China will rescue them. by skam240 · · Score: 1

      For a person to have command responsibility ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... ), the legal doctrine sited in Yamashita's execution, the person in question needs to have been able to stop the war crime in question.

      In order to punish Obama in any legal context Obama would have to have some sort of liability for the crime committed. He has none because (5th time now) he had absolutely no involvement with the bombing. The bombing was even contrary to clearly stated US military doctrine. Yamashita on the other hand was present with his army and certainly had the power to stop the abuses perpetrated by his army that happened over a period of several years.

      It's really astounding how much you dislike Obama though. You're so desperate to attach guilt to him in this context that you've completely dismissed the legal concept of liability.

      --
      I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
    41. Re:China will rescue them. by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      The judges at The Hague will decide that, when Obama goes on trial for war crimes. Who knows, they might buy your defense and he'd be acquitted! But he must go on trial nonetheless.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    42. Re:China will rescue them. by skam240 · · Score: 1

      "The judges at The Hague will decide that, when Obama goes on trial for war crimes."

      The thing is, he never will because normal people understand the concept of liability.

      --
      I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
  3. The Seas AREN'T Rising.. by kenwd0elq · · Score: 1, Interesting

    There's an island in the harbor in Sydney, Australia. Back in 1865, they build a stone fortification on the island. You can see a few photos of Fort Denison through the years on the Wikipedia page at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.... You can plainly see that the sea level rise since 1865 to the present day is approximately zero.

    1. Re: The Seas AREN'T Rising.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      Yes. Another thing that these "the seas are rising due to climate change OMG" people fail to ever remember is that the tectonic plates we learned about in school are always in flux, rising and sinking at different angles over time. Some places simply are sinking, others are rising. No need to foam at the mouth and yell climate change.

    2. Re:The Seas AREN'T Rising.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    3. Re: The Seas AREN'T Rising.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is a lot of truth to what you are saying. If you go to the following website you can click on the bubbles and see charts of the sea level going back for decades. Be aware that not all are up to date though.

      http://www.psmsl.org/data/obtaining/map.html#plotTab

    4. Re: The Seas AREN'T Rising.. by DogDude · · Score: 1

      Yes, tectonic plates are still moving. And the seas are rising faster than even in geologic history.

      --
      I don't respond to AC's.
    5. Re:The Seas AREN'T Rising.. by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 4, Funny

      You can plainly see that the sea level rise since 1865 to the present day is approximately zero.

      Have you heard of "tides" at all?

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    6. Re:The Seas AREN'T Rising.. by Opportunist · · Score: 2

      If you're certain about this, buy some real estate on the Marshall Islands. I heard prices are a steal these days, plots right at the beach front for a bargain!

      Better buy today! They might be gone tomorrow!

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    7. Re: The Seas AREN'T Rising.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      According to those who are paid to say that sea levels are rising, sea levels are rising. Except where there is clear evidence that they aren't. Those areas possess so much white privilege that the seas don't rise.

    8. Re:The Seas AREN'T Rising.. by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 3, Informative

      Nope. Foreigners can not buy land in the Marshall Islands.

    9. Re:The Seas AREN'T Rising.. by kenwd0elq · · Score: 1

      Not a chance; latency there is a bitch.

    10. Re:The Seas AREN'T Rising.. by kenwd0elq · · Score: 1

      As a retired Navy officer with a BS in Physics, I will admit to a certain amount of familiarity with the concepts and mechanisms of tides. I've even sailed on the ebbing tides. But "rising sea levels" aren't caused by tides.

    11. Re: The Seas AREN'T Rising.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Its possible he meant to say that the variance due to tides is much greater than the current sea level rise and therefor if the picture is taken at the appropriate time it could mask the sea level rise observed in the photo..,

    12. Re: The Seas AREN'T Rising.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Climate change is real. Both in sea levels and in temperature changes. It is settled science. That is all.

    13. Re: The Seas AREN'T Rising.. by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Really? I see thousands of years with a LOT higher rate of sea-level change, some as high as 4+ meters per century, which would be about 20 times higher than the worst-case estimates for today. Rising faster than ever in geologic history? Hardly.

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    14. Re:The Seas AREN'T Rising.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're retarded BS taking it up your aft port you lying faggot. Stop lying or die. In fact, just die. Nobody will miss your lies.

    15. Re: The Seas AREN'T Rising.. by Cmdln+Daco · · Score: 1

      'Settled science' is the kind of thing someone who is non-scientific would say. Science is always un-settled. We learn more every day.

      The 'that is all' you tacked on is further evidence that you've closed your mind to the scientific method. 'All' is never even on the horizon.

    16. Re: The Seas AREN'T Rising.. by kenwd0elq · · Score: 0

      "Science" is never "settled", and those who claim that it is don't understand how science works. There are ALWAYS new things to learn. Even the best theories are subject to modification in the light of new facts. But politically motivated demagogues like Al Gore and Jerry Brown are attempting to seize POLITICAL power by twisting "science"" to their own ends. Please remember that Brown and Gore are both failed seminarians, and are creating a RELIGION where they couldn't hack it in their own.

      CO2 isn't the only factor in the climate. The SUN is the biggest factor, and the Sun _also_ changes in cycles.
      The climate is ALWAYS changing; always have, always will. We didn't cause it, and we can't prevent it.

    17. Re:The Seas AREN'T Rising.. by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      So, the water marks on the photo you mentioned before are not caused by tides? So you can tell us which mark is from 1862 and which from 1950? Good luck with that ...

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    18. Re: The Seas AREN'T Rising.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nobody has ever denied that the climate changes.

    19. Re:The Seas AREN'T Rising.. by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 1

      You should have another think about my admittedly facetious question.

      Not that you should need to, since others have already explained my point, and you've apparently avoided addressing it.

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    20. Re: The Seas AREN'T Rising.. by Rockoon · · Score: 1

      And the seas are rising faster than even in geologic history.

      Ever think that people like you, the ones that just make shit up like what I quoted here, are the fucking problem? You are a dishonest lying fuck, proven with this quote, and yet nominated yourself as a vocal spokesperson for AGW.

      How about you just STFU forever you disgusting dishonest fuck. Your kind hurts every conversation.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    21. Re: The Seas AREN'T Rising.. by Sique · · Score: 1
      Then lets put it differently: We have a pretty decent clue how electromagnetic waves interact with the molecules in the atmosphere (actually, we can calculate it down to ten digits). We thus know the absorption bands of methane, water vapor and carbon dioxide, and we know, that all three of the molecules are strongly absorbing in the near infrared. We have very good records of the composition of the atmosphere going back at least until 1875. We know that the atmospheric carbon dioxide for instance has risen from 270 ppm in 1900 (e.g. Anatole Leduc: Nouvelles recherches sur le Gaz, 1899) to 410 ppm today (The Keeling curve). We know the relationship between the radiation of a body and its temperature. Max Planck got the Nobel Prize for that in 1919. We know of the Greenhouse effect since 1895, when Svante Arrhenius published it. We can calculate that a black body of the size of Earth on Earth's orbit around the Sun would get into a thermal equilibrium between the energy absorbed from the Sun's radiation and its own thermal radiation because of its heat at around 255 Kelvin (which is close to 0 F). We also know that the average surface temperature of Earth is around 290 K (a little above 60 F). Thus we can estimate the Greenhouse effect on Earth at about 35 K (or 60 F) without breaking a sweat. We know that other bodies in the Solar system have a Greenhouse effect too (e.g. very strong at Venus, quite weak at Mars, and even Saturn's moon Titan has one).

      So yes, there is very much science around the Greenhouse effect, and it needs a totally revolutionary discovery to throw that out. The only wiggle room remaining is that we don't know exactly where and when which secondary effect (e.g. changed weather patterns, rising sealevels, acidification of the oceans) starts to become measurable. For instance, we know now that at least 1/4 of the rising sealevels so far were not from the thermal expansion of the seawater or from known glaciers melting. Instead, it has come from glaciers we didn't know of that they existed (and now many of them have ceased to exist).

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
    22. Re:The Seas AREN'T Rising.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If we want to be really technical in this discussion, more water in the sea would mean a bulgier planet around the equator. Australia is far from the equator to feel the full brunt of this effect.
      Earth is not a perfect sphere. It is bulging at the equator due both to the Earths rotation as well as the gravitational pull of the moon. (which causes the tides)

      Also, cherry-picking at random won't work. That's not how statistics work.
      If that were the case, I could easily say "people that breathe oxygen die 100% of the time" and be correct, since they do die, just not instantly like the implication given.
      The level is rising on average over time. The lows and highs are rising.
      I live in a coastal region just slightly closer to the equator and even I have seen an area I used to pass on the train getting flooded more often now. They've had to extend the coast and add walls to limit it, and add channels for rain flow.
      To be honest, they shouldn't be living there in the first place since it is weak land, but idiots will be idiots.

      This is a fact. It isn't politics. You only need to use your fucking brain once and a while to see this.
      I'm not one of these "hurr durr fossil fuels are da devil" environut types either. They have proper uses but most countries sadly don't do that, nor deal with the side-effects of their use.
      But denying actual facts like this makes you look like a right retard.

    23. Re: The Seas AREN'T Rising.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Settled science" is sort of like the g-man saying "TOP MEN" at the end of The Last Crusade.

      What it really means is "Shut up and stop asking questions." Very antithetical to science.

    24. Re: The Seas AREN'T Rising.. by kenai_alpenglow · · Score: 1

      And what about that civilization that lived in what is now the English Channel (or there-abouts; too lazy to look up exactly where in that area, but they made a big deal a few years ago about that area being above sea level)?

    25. Re: The Seas AREN'T Rising.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ken is trying very hard to be obtuse, but the real answer is that photos don't have the resolution to measure small changes in sea level in inches. You can't rely on photos.

    26. Re: The Seas AREN'T Rising.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And what about the.... too lazy to argue

    27. Re: The Seas AREN'T Rising.. by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      Nope. Whole world used to be covered in ice. It's not anymore. One day it will be again. The climate DOES change!

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    28. Re: The Seas AREN'T Rising.. by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      Umm, they probably ended up slowly moving to the UK, Belgium, or Norway?

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    29. Re: The Seas AREN'T Rising.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That was "Raiders of the Lost Ark", shitboy. Drown in an unflushed toilet.

    30. Re: The Seas AREN'T Rising.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most non-white ethnic groups do not understand the concept of long term thinking.

      For example, long mandatory prison sentences for drug crimes seem to have no affect at crime prevention because the ethnic groups the laws are aimed at don't exhibit long term thinking. It's the same reason why whites tend to accumulate wealth over a lifetime whereas dysfunctional ethnic groups never get ahead.

      Certain ethnic groups are mired in short term thinking. For example, paying a 30 year mortgage, utility bills and living within one's means does not resonate with them. They would rather have showy "bling" now then sacrifice for the sake of their family and their future.

      Obama-style "pogrums" will never create wealth for these people because these people don't have the mental tools to do what it takes to create and keep wealth.

    31. Re:The Seas AREN'T Rising.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It isn't a fact. The sea erodes the coastline, if you grew up somewhere like that you'd know that's why we put sea defences up (including rocks).

      The sea will erode the coastline regardless of whether or not the average levels go up or down by several mm. It's not evidence of anything.

    32. Re: The Seas AREN'T Rising.. by Cmdln+Daco · · Score: 1

      Only losers paid any attention to the Hollywood films and lore of the 80's and early 90's. There were so many other more interesting things to be doing.

    33. Re: The Seas AREN'T Rising.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The NSW government is worried about sea level rises effect on Fort Denison and has published a report that outlines how it will be effected. https://climatechange.environment.nsw.gov.au/~/media/8AF7B67C81D74420B8CCDD6BDC7D6E66.ashx

      This is a much more reliable source than relying on pictures. Especially when king tides can vary water levels up to 2.5 meters.

    34. Re:The Seas AREN'T Rising.. by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Want to buy a passport?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  4. Theory vs. data by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 4, Informative
    --
    Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    1. Re: Theory vs. data by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yup, atolls stay consistently a few m above sea level through coral nd shell fish growth making sand. Sea levels have risen 120m in last 20000 years, very telling that atolls are all still above sea level.

    2. Re:Theory vs. data by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maldives has had no mechanism to measure land area to a degree of accuracy for a sensible conclusion of no change over the last 60 years. The few surveys conducted were highly erroneous in the past. Since these islands are small and numerous, the changes in shorelines(perimeters) quickly add up to significance. So, even with recent satellite imagery, land area for most of these islands, remain a vague quantity that keeps oscillating daily with the tides, and changing annually with relatively large shifting sand beaches that often deviate from pattern, (which I'd hypothesize to be) given the random nature of contributions from ocean swells and winds, which themselves reflect effects of climate change.

      "Land area (sq. km) in Maldives was reported at 300 sq. Km in 2016, ..."
      from the link: https://tradingeconomics.com/maldives/land-area-sq-km-wb-data.html
      Even from that source, you can see that the 300 sq. Km is a nice rounded estimate that the government released.

      I've personally seen new islands grow stable enough to sustain plants through out the year. Also seen a lot of shrinking land, plus eroded sandless reef bases where the elderly used to see islands with trees. These has also been a lot of artificial reclamation which further complicates figures. We need better figures than that 300 sq. Km, to conclude whether the total is growing or shrinking in the long run.

    3. Re:Theory vs. data by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      So if things are so hard to measure, then how do we know they are disappearing and not growing or stable like the vast majority of other coral atoll islands?

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    4. Re:Theory vs. data by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because that is what the models tell us is happening of course!

      Keep measuring, adjusting, and tweaking confidence until the data matches the model, then run headlines with the settled science.

    5. Re:Theory vs. data by swillden · · Score: 5, Informative

      Data shows that coral-based islands (like the Marshalls) are growing. Eighty percent are either stable or growing. Tuvalu has added 3% more land in the last 50 years, and the Maldives, which famously held a cabinet meeting underwater to show their nation is doomed has no change in land area over the last 60 years.

      Coral atolls grow higher when sea levels rise. The question is one of rates. As long as the sea level rises are slow enough, the atolls will be more or less fine. But if the water rises faster than the corals can grow, they'll be inundated. Massive corals of the sort that make up these atoll reefs can grow up to 5mm per year. Over the 20th century the average annual sea level increase was 1.7mm. No problem, they can keep up with that. Since the 90s the rate has averaged 3.2mm per year. The corals can handle that, too... but the rate doesn't have to accelerate much more to overwhelm them.

      Indeed, even at current rates, islands are having problems. I was on Rarotonga last month, in the Cook Islands. Natives there told me that their lagoons used to be two to three times deeper than they are now. The problem is that seas are crashing higher over the reefs and depositing more sand, causing the lagoons to fill in. This has created problems for fishing and for the tourist industry (snorkeling in a foot of water isn't much fun). However, it's expected that over the next 20 years the waves will rise higher yet and begin removing sand from the lagoons and the beaches, reversing the shallowing trend and then beginning to eat away at the island. Rarotonga will be fine; it's volcanic and rises over 2000 feet above sea level at its highest point. At worst people will have to move inland a little bit. But it could easily devastate the already-fragile island economy.

      I was also on Mangaia and they're facing a different problem. Much of the island's fresh water supply comes from inland lakes which flow through tunnels in the makatea (fossil coral) to the ocean. But sea levels have risen enough that during storms water now flows in through the tunnels, turning the lakes brackish. This is having serious effects on the island ecosystems as well as making fresh water harder to come by.

      The bottom line is that for many islanders, climate change is already having very real and very visible effects, mostly due to rising sea levels. And it's going to get much worse. And many low-lying coral atolls may just disappear when the rate of sea level rise exceeds the rate at which the corals can grow.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    6. Re:Theory vs. data by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 3, Insightful

      has no change in land area over the last 60 years [tradingeconomics.com].
      Obviously. Do you actually know how much the sea water was rising during the last 60 years?
      So how the fuck should they have a noticeable as in measurable change in land area?

      Data shows that coral-based islands (like the Marshalls) are growing. Eighty percent are either stable or growing.
      Yes, the islands that have 10m in diameter are growing to 11m ... perfect for an area that has 1200 islands and only a few handful of actually inhabitated islands.

      And the thing you forget the most: the problem is not area, it is hight. While corrals grow in some areas, they die in others due to many factors, one is heat. We don't know yet if your cherry picked islands will have corrals that will survive. So while an island might get area, its hight does not change. So no idea about what bullshit you are nitpicking.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    7. Re:Theory vs. data by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      then how do we know they are disappearing From people living there telling us.
      and not growing or stable like the vast majority^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H a few hand picked of other coral atoll islands Fixed that misconception of yours ... well, your typo. Not your misconception.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    8. Re:Theory vs. data by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      I guess the links I provided from National Geographic and others, stating that about 80% of all coral atolls are either stable or growing, qualifies as "a few hand picked" to you? You're remarkably light on references...

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    9. Re:Theory vs. data by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even with the variations, we could have seen a long term pattern, if people had actually kept some record of the shoreline over the past 60 years.
      But until recently, all we had were highly erratic data from a few surveys and peoples' memories.

      Maldives had been mostly a fishing community with no incentive to worry about and survey the environment until around the 80s and 90s when tourism really took off, and people started getting a little better education and started realizing that the environment actually was a thing that could affect their lives. And around a 1000 out of the 1200 islands were not inhabited. The best charts we had for a long time were the old British admiralty charts which themselves had many errors (which even led to vessels running aground when the charts were incorporated into early graphical gps units)

    10. Re:Theory vs. data by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      You have presented zero evidence to the contrary of my claims. Most atolls are either stable or growing. When data and theory collide, data should win - unless you treat your theory as a religion...

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    11. Re:Theory vs. data by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Sea level rise has NOT accelerated, and the report that found oceans were absorbing more heat than previously thought was found to have fundamental -- it is not unfair to say fatal -- mathematical flaws.

      The truth is that the data does not support that conclusion. At all.

      And while fresh water on many smaller islands has always been an issue, it is not one that can be attributed to AGW-caused "climate change".

    12. Re:Theory vs. data by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1, Informative

      Here are two revealing reports about the "ocean heat" paper.

      Author Resplandy has responded and thanked Mr Lewis for catching the mistakes.

      A Major Problem With The Resplandy Paper

      Resplandy et al. Part 2

    13. Re:Theory vs. data by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 3, Informative

      A relatively steady 2-3mm or less per year (in most parts of the world) would be max 180mm, or 18cm over 60 years.

      Most people, at most beaches, would not even notice this difference over that great a time period. In fact it is indistinguishable in comparison photographs even on certain Florida beaches which are well-known to be subsiding in addition to any ocean rise.

      Just FYI, I have noticed over a period of years that this "Angel" person has often been an opinionated, agressive, and mean-spirited arguer. My best suggestion is that he/she is probably not worth your time.

    14. Re:Theory vs. data by bradley13 · · Score: 1

      The freshwater problems of these islands is not due to climate. It is almost always a case of local overuse. When the islanders pump to much fresh water out of the island, salt water impinges. Overuse of freshwater can also cause land subsidence.

      --
      Enjoy life! This is not a dress rehearsal.
    15. Re:Theory vs. data by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Liu and Curry's August 2010 paper, "Accelerated warming of the Southern Ocean and its impacts on the hydrological cycle and sea ice", has been criticized for its failure to cite previous papers drawing the same conclusion, and for its "uncritical use of invalid data"."

    16. Re:Theory vs. data by swillden · · Score: 2

      The freshwater problems of these islands is not due to climate. It is almost always a case of local overuse. When the islanders pump to much fresh water out of the island, salt water impinges. Overuse of freshwater can also cause land subsidence.

      Nope, not in this case. The island's population and water use has fallen dramatically over the last 20 years. This is because of climate. Specifically, sea level.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    17. Re:Theory vs. data by swillden · · Score: 2
      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    18. Re:Theory vs. data by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      No this is because it's a shithole and no one wants to live there.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    19. Re:Theory vs. data by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't know about the other places, but for Maldives we simply don't have enough recorded data to sensibly conclude either way for a time span going as back as 60 years.
      This is a group of about 1200 islands where only about 200 were inhabited with small villages of fishermen. So until around the 80s and 90s when tourism industry started really taking off, there really was no incentive to bother about changes in shorelines even in the inhabited islands, let alone the remaining scattered thousand.
      The best we had are the British admiralty charts from the colonial era, which themselves were found to contain a lot of error(error which cannot be explained simply as change to shorelines) when they got incorporated into the early graphical gps units.

    20. Re:Theory vs. data by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Just FYI, I have noticed over a period of years that this "Angel" person has often been an opinionated, agressive, and mean-spirited arguer. My best suggestion is that he/she is probably not worth your time.
      Nevertheless you support my point, thank you :P

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    21. Re:Theory vs. data by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      You have presented zero evidence to the contrary of my claims.
      You need evidence for common sense? Wow ...

      https://ocean.si.edu/ecosystem...
      https://www.leisurepro.com/blo...

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    22. Re:Theory vs. data by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      https://www.leisurepro.com/blo...

      80% of all corral reefs are shrinking or dying ... no idea why you claim otherwise.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    23. Re:Theory vs. data by swillden · · Score: 1

      No this is because it's a shithole and no one wants to live there.

      That's an odd comment. Are you always an asshole, or only on slashdot?

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    24. Re:Theory vs. data by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hmm. Let's try having the islands outgrow the sea level rise caused by climate change. How well does that work out long term?

      https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...

      Not so well, it seems.

    25. Re:Theory vs. data by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thank you for posting these.

    26. Re:Theory vs. data by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      Shove your political correctness up your ass, The Marshalls are the middle of nowhere and the last great thing to happen to them was copra. Guess what? No one is buying coconuts anymore. I'm pretty sure anyone who can get the hell out leaves as fast and as soon as they can.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
  5. Nuke 'em? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Didn't we nuke them before? Maybe it's time to relocate the people once and for all and resume any testing needed to modernize our stockpile.

    1. Re: Nuke 'em? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, I vote the next tests are on the US mainland.
      Regards
      The rest of the world.

    2. Re: Nuke 'em? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      I heard North Korea is planning something like that already.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    3. Re: Nuke 'em? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sane people speak for themselves; lunatics speak for the whole world.

  6. We're going to blow way past 1.5 degrees very soon by DogDude · · Score: 0

    We're already at 1-1.2 degrees C since the start of the industrial revolution. None of the countries on the planet are anywhere close to meeting their emissions pledges. We're going to be significantly above 1.5 degrees within a decade, if not sooner. We need to be planning for +8.0 degrees, not 1.5.

    --
    I don't respond to AC's.
  7. Give us a break by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That is 3 of the 6 latest stories on slashdots front page that are about climate change, guess we know msmash favorite topic.

    Slashdot should change the tag to, news for alarmists, stuff that we are over

    1. Re: Give us a break by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why donâ(TM)t you put your head in the sand if you canâ(TM)t cope will reality?

    2. Re: Give us a break by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thanks for that - ânews for alarmistsâ(TM) - made me giggle. Other ones could be âAliens will destroy usâ(TM) or âthe sun will engulf the earthâ(TM)

    3. Re: Give us a break by kenwd0elq · · Score: 1

      But the Sun probably WILL engulf the Earth! In 3-4 BILLION years, and assuming that we don't move the Earth into a more distant orbit. (Larry Niven figured out HOW, even though we're millennia away from having the technology to do it.)

    4. Re: Give us a break by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In about 500 million years all life on Earth will be extinct due to ever-increasing solar output. The final billion years of Earth will be silent. But what does it matter to you? Humans will be extinct or evolved beyond recognition (my money is on extinct) in a million years' time. Ultimately, all we do is for nothing. Get over it. Science and technology won't make any difference.

  8. Seas are rising - Stop lying by DogDude · · Score: 2

    1. Seas are rising.
    2. That Wikipedia page doesn't show shit. You can't "plainly" see anything.

    --
    I don't respond to AC's.
    1. Re:Seas are rising - Stop lying by kenwd0elq · · Score: 1

      1. The IPCC is more political than scientific. You'll need a better argument than an appeal to a political authority.
      2. The PHOTOS on the Wikipedia page clearly show that the waterline of the stonework in 1865 is pretty much even with the waterline in 2014.

    2. Re:Seas are rising - Stop lying by Sique · · Score: 1

      The IPCC is not political. You just want to be it political. The IPCC does nothing else than compiling all recent papers concening climate research into a big meta study every few years. Sorry if the results of that meta study doesn't fit some political agendas, but that doesn't make the meta study as such political.

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
    3. Re:Seas are rising - Stop lying by kenai_alpenglow · · Score: 1

      Just about anything that starts with the word "international" is political. And if IPCC does compile "recent papers", how does it take the politics of those papers into account? I tend towards agnosticism--climate change is too political on both sides to know what research is true and which is just crying wolf. On Both Sides! One clue: When global warmist believers start having all their meetings virtual, and start calling for measures that don't enrich themselves (power or money), then they become more believable. Until then, true or not, I don't put much credence in their "findings". The other side doesn't have much power.

    4. Re:Seas are rising - Stop lying by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (ipcc) says - surprise! - Climate Change is real!

      How about say, using an objective source?

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    5. Re:Seas are rising - Stop lying by DogDude · · Score: 1

      Just about anything that starts with the word "international" is political.

      That's a really stupid statement. You're hopeless.

      --
      I don't respond to AC's.
  9. Re:We're going to blow way past 1.5 degrees very s by olsmeister · · Score: 1

    I don't see why we can't dredge the plastic out of the ocean and use it to build up these islands. It's a win-win.

  10. Don't Atolls naturally Collapse Back into the Sea? by DatbeDank · · Score: 1

    I was under the impression that atolls naturally collapse back into the sea over a period of several hundreds of years.

    Ocean level changes not with standing, isn't this part of the natural collapse of land back into the ocean?

  11. Re: Don't Atolls naturally Collapse Back into the by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No. They wouldnâ(TM)t have but Fukushima so close to the ocean if that happened

  12. Your link proves him right by SuperKendall · · Score: 5, Informative

    If you read your own link, you'll find since 1862 sea level has risen about 0.25 feet. That is hardly anything, and again, if you look at the data you posted it has actually FALLEN very slightly since 1950.

    Also doesn't the rather large jump around 1950 with no other rise since kind of speak to the measurement method having changed?

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:Your link proves him right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Quite the skilled propagandist you are. ".25 of a foot" huh? Who measures seal level rises that way? And if you read the link you'd see a fair amount of fluctuation. Arbitrarily picking dates and saying "Hey, it's dropped" reminds me of the "There's been no temperature rise for 14 years" meme that was doing the rounds last year.

      Sea levels are rising. Not only is picking one location and saying "Huh, no rise there" meaningless, but in this case the GGP didn't even pick an example that actually showed no rise. But sure, go by photos on Wikipedia, that makes far more sense than believing actual scientists and their so called "measurements".

    2. Re:Your link proves him right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm curious, where are the stats showing where ./ visits come from?

    3. Re:Your link proves him right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > a tech-centric website

      uses SI units.

      You use feet, inches etc. when you're talking to uneducated lay people.

      This is obvious, even for lay people. They think multiplying by ten is hard, so they remain with their "easier" operations with different factors -- 12 inches in a foot, 5280 feet in a mile... i.e., whenever they agree on such conversions.

      OK, let's take out the gloves: I shouldn't have said "lay". The correct word is "foolish".

      If you write for fools, all you'll get is fool readers.

  13. Re: We're going to blow way past 1.5 degrees very by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Do you seriously believe that nonsense or are you trolling? The AGW religious nutters are so extreme it is hard to tell the difference between their belief-based anti-science stand and people mocking them.

  14. Niggas can't swim by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's why they're worried

  15. Pacific Islands growing not shrinking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Interesting

    Here is a National Geographic Article arguing Pacific Islands are growing not shrinking and the Marshal Islands are included. The propaganda of global warming makes my stomach sick. What kinda sick fucks keep pushing this god damn bullshit.

    https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2015/02/150213-tuvalu-sopoaga-kench-kiribati-maldives-cyclone-marshall-islands/

  16. Domes by jfdavis668 · · Score: 1

    They need to start their undersea lifestyle sooner than later.

  17. Re: We're going to blow way past 1.5 degrees very by coolsnowmen · · Score: 1

    The irony in calling scientists religious, when it is the one ideology that begs to be proven wrong every day. Unlike actual religion.

  18. Breaking Story: Nature Adapts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Surprise, surprise, surprise!

  19. Where do we go? by Iwastheone · · Score: 1

    I currently live on Long Island, NY. If the seas rise just a little bit, all this expensive real estate out here will be gone, just gone and all the millions of humans that live here now will have to relocate. Well, life is changing, I suppose. Humans are adaptable to change. If the Artic pole melts away fully, hey!, new real estate! Yay us! /s

    1. Re:Where do we go? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Erh... if the ANTarctic ice melts you could get some new real estate. All the arctic ice melting is going to give you is a nice fishing hole, provided you have some real estate in Greenland.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    2. Re: Where do we go? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How will we adapt to having to no food?

    3. Re:Where do we go? by Iwastheone · · Score: 1

      Touche Sir/Madam. I stand corrected.

    4. Re: Where do we go? by Iwastheone · · Score: 1

      There's always a McDonalds down the road..., oh wait, no more roads. Hmmm...

    5. Re: Where do we go? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Better dress warm

    6. Re:Where do we go? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I currently live on Long Island, NY.

      So, you obviously believe there is no danger of your home sinking under the waves any time soon, or else you'd move, right?

      Probably smart, since even if all the B.S. is true there may be a few inches of sea level rise over the next few decades. I hardly think your neighbors on an island which reaches up to 400' above sea level will notice that and if they did, well... it's pretty simple to build up an inch per decade barrier to protect expensive real estate.

    7. Re: Where do we go? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Give it time.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  20. Re:My favorite is Florida by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just in Florida at the beaches had a great time plan on going back in 6 months. When I hear the propagandists saying "Denier" it reminds me of Nazis screaming the word Jew.

  21. We already have a solution to this by EvilSS · · Score: 1

    Just redefine sea level to be lower, that's all! Worked for Colonel Stuart.

    --
    I browse on +1 so AC's need not respond, I won't see it.
    1. Re:We already have a solution to this by Iwastheone · · Score: 1

      Nice comment, I like how you think. https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    2. Re:We already have a solution to this by Iwastheone · · Score: 1
      Sorry, wrong link. I meant to post this... :^)

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

      Stewart was appointed a Cornet in the British 11th Hussars in 1865. In 1882 Lieutenant Colonel Stewart was instructed to prepare a report on the Sudan where Muhammad Ahmad Al-Mahdi was defying the Egyptian Government with success. After a journey to Khartoum and return to Egypt the "Report on the Soudan" (1883) was finished.

      He returned with Gordon as second-in-command on his journey to Khartoum commencing with departure from Victoria station in February 1884. Wounded during the siege, Stewart led an attempt to break the blockade aboard the Steamer Abbas in September 1884, along with the British consul Frank Power (who was also the correspondent from The Times), the French consul Léon Herbin, and other residents of Khartoum. The attempt failed when the Abbas ran aground on a rock near Abu Hamad. All passengers and crew were killed by Arab tribes ashore. Gordon learned of this a few weeks later when he received a letter from the Mahdi that quoted from letters that Stewart had been carrying with him on the Abbas.

    3. Re:We already have a solution to this by Iwastheone · · Score: 1

      John Donald Hamill Stewart, CMG (15 October 1845 – September 1884)[1] was a British soldier. He accompanied General Gordon to Khartoum in 1884 as his assistant. He died in September 1884 attempting to run the blockade from the besieged city at the hands of the Manasir tribesmen and followers of Muhammad

    4. Re: We already have a solution to this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pretty little story

    5. Re:We already have a solution to this by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Funnily Swiss naval maps use 1m lower (or was it higher? I forgot) as "agreed zero" for water depths than the rest of Europe. Which is a pain in the ass for Swiss who have to navigate in tidal water. No one knows why they did that. Obviously swiss people mostly use local maps anyway so thy don't have that problem ... so much to "defining water depths/height".

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
  22. Simple solution by Tablizer · · Score: 4, Funny

    Sell them to climate change deniers. By their logic, it should be a nice deal.

    1. Re:Simple solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You do realize that low elevation islands have always been temporary, right?

      Give me a low slung island made out of bedrock and we'll talk. A 50 year old sandbar? You can keep that.

  23. Floating islands by sl149q · · Score: 1, Interesting

    This is an old post describing how coral atolls float and effectively keep pace with the rise and fall of sea level.

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/20...

    And there have been numerous recent reports showing that island (e.g. Tuvalu) is indeed growing.

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/20...

    From Nature communications:
    Patterns of island change and persistence offer alternate adaptation pathways for atoll nations

    Paul S. Kench, Murray R. Ford & Susan D. Owen

    Abstract
    Sea-level rise and climatic change threaten the existence of atoll nations. Inundation and erosion are expected to render islands uninhabitable over the next century, forcing human migration. Here we present analysis of shoreline change in all 101 islands in the Pacific atoll nation of Tuvalu. Using remotely sensed data, change is analysed over the past four decades, a period when local sea level has risen at twice the global average (~3.90±0.4mm.yr1). Results highlight a net increase in land area in Tuvalu of 73.5ha (2.9%), despite sea-level rise, and land area increase in eight of nine atolls. Island change has lacked uniformity with 74% increasing and 27% decreasing in size. Results challenge perceptions of island loss, showing islands are dynamic features that will persist as sites for habitation over the next century, presenting alternate opportunities for adaptation that embrace the heterogeneity of island types and their dynamics.

    1. Re:Floating islands by thogard · · Score: 5, Informative

      Sand based atolls are effectively floating on slightly more sense layers and most of them are in areas where that other layer is flat. The atolls dissolve on one side and get built up on the other by a mix of consistent ocean currents and prevailing winds. That causes the islands to creep along keeping their basic shape until they hit depression or hill on the lower layer. Depressions tends to destroy the atoll and the hills tend to split the atolls in two.

      These sinking islands are going to sink weather global warming is true or false but global warming always gets drug into conversation about them which sidelines the discussion.

    2. Re:Floating islands by drinkypoo · · Score: 0

      "These sinking islands are going to sink weather global warming is true or false but global warming always gets drug into conversation about them which sidelines the discussion."

      You have that exactly backwards. This conversation is about global warming and you are trying to sideline that with talk of how atolls behave. You don't think the people working on this know at least as much about that as you do? Dunning and Krueger were here.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    3. Re:Floating islands by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      you are the one backwards.

      there is no problem here with the islands, only expected behavior.

      trying to whine about global warming and invoking an imagined problem with these islands is wrong.

  24. Re: We're going to blow way past 1.5 degrees very by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When a scientist makes a prediction, and it turns up wrong, he modifies his theory.

    Not so with climate "scientists".

  25. Relocate, elevate. What about respirate? by Snufu · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Everything is either or with you guys. So what if it's bleedin' damp.

  26. Re:IMPERSONATING ME AGAIN? apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Taking a break from your shift at the glory hole in the Pilot Travel Center off of I81 near your house again?

  27. Those Indians Who Arrowed The Missionary Deserve by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    To Be Flooded - in BIBLICAL PROPORTIONS! God Is ANGRY And HE WILL DOOM ALL HEATHENS TO HELL! As God As My Witness I Speak The Truth! The Trump Truth! So Help Me Trump! It Makes Sense When You Study This In Derpth!

  28. Re:My favorite is Florida by willy_me · · Score: 2, Informative

    Red tide is not brought on by climate change. Pollutants in the water (fertilizer) result in optimal conditions for red tide. One has to better manage farming practices inland to prevent the pollutants from running off into the ocean. Warmer water temperatures could also be a factor - but minor compared to the impact of pollutants.

  29. Re:My favorite is Florida by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    Warmer waters are a precondition for dinoflagellae, the nitrates give them a food source that allows them to saturate the water when they die making it anaerobic in addition to the neurotoxic domoic acid they excrete. Both are required.
    Stop pretending you're a marine biologist who knows definitively what you're talking about when you don't. Red tide favorable conditions are indeed obviously part of climate change in some places, and you don't know how much.

    No, we don't need some layman's loose guess about which is worse, it varies from place to place and both are bad news because the result is dead zones and possibly eventually loss of species. Yes, climate change influences that.

    Lie casually again and you lose a finger.

  30. I think you mean skilled reader by SuperKendall · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    Quite the skilled propagandist you are.

    I read data from the graph at the link that *you* provided... are you saying the link you provided was propaganda?

    Trust me, it didn't take a lot of skill to read data from a chart. But, apparently it's more effort than you put in.

    ".25 of a foot" huh? Who measures seal level rises that way?

    Sorry, didn't think you would understand what "mm" meant. You are just an AC after all. You can go back to your link again and find the same numbers I did any time you like, in mm directly from the chart on measured levels. I guess maybe you did and because the numbers were so large you thought it meany the increase was really large? Maybe you didn't bother to subtract the start from the end? Is that why you posted the link with such obvious pride despite it saying the opposite of what you were claiming?

    I'll note you did not even attempt to answer the questions I posed, so perhaps the concept of "mm" is beyond you after all.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  31. Re:Those Indians Who Arrowed The Missionary Deserv by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Pleas dvote troll.

  32. Re: We're going to blow way past 1.5 degrees very by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You're a liar who has no background in science or even the plausible pseudo-literacy to try to pretend you know what you're talking about.

    At this point, anyone still preaching climate change is sounding very much like an end-of-the-world religious nutcase.

    By all means, carry on.

  33. No surprise at all by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The boundaries of countries/continents change all the time even millions of years before humans arrived. Sucks to be them but hopefully they will find somewhere to relocate to.

  34. Re: We're going to blow way past 1.5 degrees very by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ^^^ LMAO check out this guy's comment

  35. IMPERSONATING ME AGAIN? apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    gweihir KNOWS u IMPERSONATE me https://it.slashdot.org/commen... c6gunner proves it https://linux.slashdot.org/com... he forgot to SUBMIT as AC & using his registered 'lusrname' instead (because he tried to mock me both BEFORE & after I FAIRLY challenged him to show he's done better work - he had ZERO).

    & NO WAY I'd "cry" like you "playing victim ne'er-do-wells" on /. (TROLL /.ers, not all) OR post on hosts offtopic.

    YOU HELPED ME https://science.slashdot.org/c... (& you quit trying to make me look bad trying to "tell lies" on hosts as "ME" IN YOUR IMPERSONATIONS of me e.g. https://tech.slashdot.org/comm... as regards Intel speculative execution attack? Hosts PREVENT 'EM)

    APK

    P.S.=> I KNOW the 2nd to last link above's KILLING YOU - YOU ACTUALLY HELPED ME getting me to see if hosts stop more than portsmash (& Meltdown + Spectre too) & "lo & behold" - hosts WORK on 'em - U LOSE... apk

  36. Re:When faggot Kenwd0elq is proven a liar... by reboot246 · · Score: 1

    That's the usual response from an idiot when he doesn't have the facts on his side. Care to be civilized for a change?

  37. Re:We're going to blow way past 1.5 degrees very s by Cmdln+Daco · · Score: 1

    You don't need to dredge the plastic out of the ocean. Catch it at the river flows in the Asian countries who are dumping most of it into the sea.

    It's not mostly coming from the West.

  38. Re: Don't Atolls naturally Collapse Back into the by Cmdln+Daco · · Score: 1

    Fukushima is on the main island of Japan, not on an atoll.

  39. Re:My favorite is Florida by Cmdln+Daco · · Score: 1

    Without any 'climate change' at all but continual fertilizer flow, red tide would continue.

    Would my middle finger suffice? No, you can't keep it. Just stare at it and gibber some more.

  40. Re:When faggot Kenwd0elq is proven a liar... by kenwd0elq · · Score: 1

    It is unfortunately common for liberal ACs to resort to threats of violence and homophobic slander in the face of reason and facts.

  41. Re: We're going to blow way past 1.5 degrees very by Cmdln+Daco · · Score: 1

    First off, 'progressives' who would be fighting 'Fox News and Breitbart' people would never use the term 'faggot'. You're just a crapflooder, and if you want your gibberish to have any impact at all in these discussions, you need to quit using the homophobic slur 'faggot.'

    But you're just a mindless crapflooder spamming here to stink things up, so it doesn't really matter. I wish that Slashdot would come up with an effective mechanism to remove your comments.

  42. Why the hell by OYAHHH · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Are seemingly half the articles on /. about "global warming" today?

    --
    Caution: Contents under pressure
    1. Re:Why the hell by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When you see a lot of ads for a film, but no reviews because the film has not been released to critics, that is a pretty good sign the film is bad.

      When you see lots of popular media stories about a scientific theory, but few reviews of the raw data because it has not been released to critics, that is a pretty good sign the theory is bad.

      Captcha: toppling

    2. Re: Why the hell by luisdom · · Score: 1

      What I'm wondering is how come a well established position in science is rejected by the majority here. What's next, vaccines?

    3. Re: Why the hell by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What I'm wondering is how come a well established position in science is rejected by the majority here. What's next, vaccines?

      The high quality and smooth taste of Doctor approved Camel brand filtered cigarettes. Scientifically guaranteed to keep you spry and lively.

      Science is not a religion. It's to be questioned. Scientists are to be questioned. People that do not believe are not heretics. Every climate model so far has proven to be wrong or has yet to be tested. They are so wrong they underestimated the impact oceans have by 60%. That is how badly thought out and researched the "well established position" is.

  43. Re:My favorite is Florida by kenwd0elq · · Score: 1

    I am not a "climate denier". Since "Globull warming" is more of a RELIGIOUS nature, the proper term is "Climate Heretic".

    I am a Climate Heretic.

  44. Re:We're going to blow way past 1.5 degrees very s by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 2

    But none of the nations that ARE bound by the treaty, such as France and Germany, are reducing their CO2 emissions at all.
    You are an idiot. All countries are reducing their output significantly.
    Germany reduced its CO2 output greatly, we are still ahead of the USA. And we do this continuously since a long time, so the effect is much bigger than the puny reduction the USA did in the last 5-10 years. As far as I know the grant nation of USA is in terms of "percentual" reduction at rank 2 or rank 3. BEHIND Germany. And the point is: the USA could have started 20 years earlier, like Germany did, which would have had an GIGANTIC impact.

    Not that any of this matters, since the Sun is probably going into a period of slightly reduced output.
    No it isn't. It is at a minimum since roughly 15 years, unexpectedly long.

    And Germany is closing their nuclear power plants, so they also have apparently given up trying to meet their CO2 reduction targets. We produce two times more electric energy with renewables than we ever produced with nuclear power.

    There are a few things to consider: you want riots? Or you want to continue the exit from nuclear? As you don't live in Germany: that is not your choice.

    The Chinese are building MANY new coal-fired plants, so they will never be able to reduce their CO2 emissions. So, they are not able to shut the plants down later? For what reason? Or electrify road traffic and ban gasoline for private/corporate use, to compensate for coal CO2 with less gasoline CO2? For what reason?

    --
    Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
  45. Re:really old story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I already watched the documentary starring Kevin Costner way back in 1995.

  46. let surplus country donate an island by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    let surplus country donate an island, dont fight nature and spend money.

  47. Didn't telegraph report an increase in island size by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Didn't the Telegraph report this? https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/australiaandthepacific/tuvalu/7799503/Pacific-islands-growing-not-shrinking-due-to-climate-change.html

  48. Re:My favorite is Florida by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Objective facts and logic are Enlightenment-Age tools of the Western white male patriarchy which they've used to oppress the rest of the world. Employing them in a debate or discussion is equivalent to a physical attack.

    Why are you being so violent?

  49. Re:IMPERSONATING ME AGAIN? apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's not the real APK. I don't think he's even posting here any more.

  50. Re:IMPERSONATING ME AGAIN? apk by webmistressrachel · · Score: 1

    It's definitely not the real APK. I have old old beef, and almost kinship too, with APK, which I've tried to bait him to reveal (so I can then wind him up - nobody's perfect). No satisfaction. lol! The reason he can't go back that far in his "memory" is because this guy isn't as good as APK was at managing his AC posts - maybe APK manually kept an offline database of all his AC CID's and SID's.

    The original APK was an intelligent and amusing sparring partner, and he used the hidden mechanisms of /. with skill and very deftly. This one (many of them?) is but a shade of APK, a poor copycat. So say I. And so says my UID and posting history. Thank you for reading this far. Now get off my lawn poor copycat.

    Maybe I'll open an "APK museum" on a hidden SID - or maybe just let him die. What's best? What really happened to APK? Someone's got to care about him, surely! Obnoxious twats (me) giving a damn about other obnoxious twats, who would've thunkit?

    --
    This tagline was transcoded to result in at least one smirk. If you experience failure to smirk, please consult your Gen
  51. Re:IMPERSONATING ME AGAIN? apk by webmistressrachel · · Score: 1

    Also, where's my hook-nosed bitch troll gone? I enjoyed the jewess rant I was getting below my post every time I BTFO'd someone with facts!

    --
    This tagline was transcoded to result in at least one smirk. If you experience failure to smirk, please consult your Gen
  52. polynesians have moved before by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And they can move again.

    for the love of God, the seas have been rising for 14000 years. What kind of survival strategy was it to live on an island anyway?

  53. Adolf and Saddam are dead. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Obama and Shrub aren't. DAESH do fuck all compared to the USA, so that doesn't count either.

    Try again, deluded merkin.

    1. Re:Adolf and Saddam are dead. by Cmdln+Daco · · Score: 1

      Pardon, your ideology is showing. You might want to tuck it in.

  54. So gravity isn't a thing yet...? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    OR are you completely fucking idiotically insane about the meaning of settled science. It's AGW. Settled. Gravity is what keeps you down. Settled. Get over it, denier fuckwits.

    1. Re:So gravity isn't a thing yet...? by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      I can design reproducible experiments to demonstrate and measure gravity. It follows the mathematical formulae precisely. Please show me where your experimental evidence is for AGW? Oh wait... you have "computer models". Oh way, those "computer models" haven't even been able to predict anything accurately, so you keep having to change them all the time. Yeah ok. CALL ME WHEN YOU'RE SETTLED.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    2. Re:So gravity isn't a thing yet...? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All it takes for you to claim the science is NOT settled is someone disagreeing. And flat earthers insist that gravity does not exist.

      So, please, go prove to flat earthers that gravity exists while they say it is woo. And THEN you'll understand what your stupidity means to sane people.

      PS how the fuck does you making that experiment make it settled? You can measure the GHG effect yourself in a lab, repeatably, check combustion produces CO2 yourself, prove the levels of CO2 yourself, etc. ALL OF WHICH IS SETTLED SCIENCE.

      And the consequence ofthat settled science is AGW. Which you insist, because you're a deluded political sheep, is not settled. Prove CO2 has no effect. Experiment shows it does. Evidence shos it does.Given that you have to show how the measurement of evidence is incorrect. NOT just go "NOT SETTLED! DON'T BELIEVE YOU!!!".

      PPS Have you ACTUALLY done an experiment to do what you claim? Because otherwise you are merely taking someone else's word for it and your claim that the POTENTIAL to do a test personally "settles science" (how does it settle it for ANYONE else, though?) is just blowing hot air.

    3. Re:So gravity isn't a thing yet...? by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      A reproducible experiment is not "someone disagreeing". If I drop my keys, they fall at 9.8m/s^2. If you drop a brick, it falls at exactly the same rate. Experiment all you want. Call me when you get a different result. You had better be ready to prove how I can get that same "different" result too and have the math to back it up, because then you've discovered something new. Until then, argue away. No scientist is listening.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
  55. Re:Didn't telegraph report an increase in island s by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So the Telegraph is a den of Denier propagandists?

    Good to know.

    Time to let their advertisers, their ISPs, domain registrars, and their hosting providers know, too.

  56. Re:When faggot Kenwd0elq is proven a liar... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's even more unfortunate when Kendall pulls this kind of shit hoping to drum up sympathy for himself, which is all this is.

    What? You thought APK was the only one who could pretend to be "other people"?

  57. Really? According to deniers, cannot be by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Because they kept whining "where are the evacuations the IPCC promised us?!?!?!? FRAUD!!!!". Are you saying that the deniers just claimed this because they neither knew nor wanted to know about this old news when it was new and rebutted their whinge?

  58. Are you a JEW webmistressrachel? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Khazar Talmudic Jews believe this of all they call goyim/gentiles (any non-jew): Jews = biggest racists of all (for which they "jew guilt" you for no less! They're hypocrites known as thieves all thru history or were Argentines in the 1940 under Peron, Spanish inquistion, France (1306), Egypt (despoiled/robbed by jews), Arabs (pre & post 1948), England (1330 Edward longshanks), Romans under titus, Russia pogroms and Germany who got rid of them from their nations nazi german's too? No. Driven into DESERTS ages ago! Don't wonder why after all those exilings above.

    Should anyone doubt any of this see Jacob Javits' crony Rosenthal spill the beans on it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D4zMVZ8HnFI/ where he called all Christianity fools for helping Israel and the biggest scam of all time per their beliefs below from their Talmud.

    This is the province of the synagogue of Satan (Pharisees whom Jesus Christ himself kicked to the curb out of the temple & they killed him for it. Jeremiah did the same to them also + the Essenes could not stand them either breaking away from the pharisee corruption):

    Mark Zuckerberg stole the Winklevoss twins' code for Fakebook (figures as he is a thieving low jew too).

    Maria Abramovic satanist spirit cooker pal of Hillary Clinton the Voodoo queen is a jew https://www.google.com/search?...

    Like Hillary Clinton's mentor Saul Alinsky author of rules for radicals book dedicated to Lucifer

    "Most Jews do not like to admit it, but our god is Lucifer Â- so I wasnÂ't lying Â- and we are his chosen people. Lucifer is very much aliveÂ" Harold Rosenthal http://www.thetruthseeker.co.u...

    Jewish rabbi openly admits to satan worship use white children's blood they kill for passover bread, infiltrating and subverting the catholic church, creating the Jesuit order https://www.youtube.com/watch?... and https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    Barbara Spectre, a jew, tells everyone it's jews orchestrating the muslim migrant problem in Europe https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MFE0qAiofMQ/ . No migrant raping of women in Poland. Tons in Sweden. Do the math. Use common-sense. This is to get muslims and other goyim/gentiles to wipe one another out as incompatible cultures that will clash and always have.

    Rabbi A. Finkelstein ADMITS their greatest enemies are ARABS and WHITES (blacks too) whom they wish to kill one another in a 'theater of war' which they find AMUSING https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    Finkelstein also admits JEWS DID 9/11 (perpetrated by the Mossad & Bebe Netanyahu of ISRAEL) https://www.youtube.com/watch?... profiting by it (and that 3,000 jews employed there did not show up for work that day knowing about it beforehand).

    Finkelstein also admits JEWS are going to destroy the U.S. Dollar and dumping it for other world currencies and gold to destroy the United States.

    George Soros who funds groups to create division in the USA?? A jew. One who sold his own jew people into death for the nazis.

    Zucker now FIRED @ CNN is another frying publicly for lying about "russians" and John Bonifield a producer @ CNN said it is bs. Van Jones did also.

    Bernie Madoff (who made off with everyone's money, especially construction union pensions) shows the thieving nature of the JUDEN!

    Eric Schmidt had to step down @ JEWgle (a jew).

    Adam Schiff (gosh s

  59. The Dalek's are going to sink Ha Ha! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ELEVATE! EXTERMINATE!

  60. Re: We're going to blow way past 1.5 degrees very by Dunbal · · Score: 1

    Yep, this is what you sound like.

    --
    Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
  61. Not the UK? by OneHundredAndTen · · Score: 1

    When it comes to an island mindset, nobody beats them...

  62. Re: Those Indians Who Arrowed The Missionary Deser by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I used to be a missionary like you but then I took an arrow in everything.

  63. webmistressrachel destroys herself... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    webmistressrachel You killed yourself LONG ago: "Successfully winding up a troll like apk is more satisfying than it should be" https://developers.slashdot.or...

    So tell us another one - you're THE MORON doing the impersonations of me, no questions asked, because you're a MENTALLY DISTURBED piece of DAMAGED GOODS (& you KNOW it).

    (I don't keep "kinship" w/ IDLE HANDS = the DEVIL's WORKSHOP freaks like YOU who've nothing BETTER to do than be gossip/rumor mongering LYING hags...)

    APK

    P.S.=> She speaks for herself quoted above... apk

  64. Darwin moment for many people around the world by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    THIS is your Darwin test. Will you pass or fail?

    It isn't just islands, but people who live in coastal areas world-wide.

    Change is the only constant in the world. As humans, we can predict a few things in the future and take steps to minimize our risks.

  65. You destroyed yourself webmistressrachel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You killed yourself LONG ago webmistressrachel: "Successfully winding up a troll like apk is more satisfying than it should be" https://developers.slashdot.or...

    So tell us another one - you're THE MORON doing the impersonations of me, no questions asked, because you're a MENTALLY DISTURBED piece of DAMAGED GOODS (& you KNOW it).

    (I don't keep "kinship" w/ IDLE HANDS = the DEVIL's WORKSHOP w/ freaks like YOU who've nothing BETTER to do than be gossip/rumor mongering LYING hags...)

    APK

    P.S.=> She speaks for herself quoted above... apk

    1. Re:You destroyed yourself webmistressrachel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're obviously a fake. Stop wasting our time.

  66. You got anything other than models? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When you claim AGW has computer models, you don't even have an experiment. So please tell me how you prove without sums (which is all a computer model is) gravity is a law and "settled science".

    Come on, fuckwit, try it. Double fucking dog dare you.

  67. So reality is called "troll" by deniers.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Al Gore STILL doesn't have an ocean side house, no matter how many times you watch the same denier fuckit claim it. It's 4km away from the seashore and several hundred meters ASL.

  68. Wrong. Do you make up EVERY conversation? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Not settled" is to you "I dont agree with your conclusion", nothing more, nothing less. DEFINITELY did not say it was "reproducible experiment" was to you "I don't agree". But clearly I am speaking to someone who cannot live outside their own internal echo chamber.

    So, to make use of baby words to fit inside that fucked up so-called "mind" of yours, you haven't done any experiment to show that gravity exists, you just ASSERT that IF YOU HAD, you'd accept it.

    Yet you STILL IGNORE the FACT that AGW *IS* repeatable. CO2's absorption, the source of the CO2, the amount of CO2 increasing and its effect on the global heat budget ARE 100% ABSOLUTELY REPEATABLE EXPERIMENTS. Doable in your own home. EVERY SINGLE ONE.

    Yet despite the FACT you COULD do it, suddenly it's not enough for you to accept AGW as scientifically settled the same way gravity is. So you HAVE to pretend that you were challenged something other than what appears in reality.

    Sad.

    Go do an experiment to prove the law of universal gravitation, prove it exists.

    Then go speak to the flat earthers that are 100% your equivalent in science denial and see how fucking stupid and ignorant your claims are when they're made to something that doesn't rub your ideology up the wrong way therefore will gladly accept is true.

    Asshole.